Reviews

I had to wait almost a year before I was able to see this movie, but it was worth the wait. As the story plays out in reverse, you find yourself constantly going "aha!", as you discover what led to events already witnessed. Excellent performances by Guy Pearce and Carrie-Ann Moss. You'll probably leave the theatre embroiled in a deep discussion with someone over the ramifications of that final scene... very cool.

Rating: 9 out of 10.

I was overall disappointed with this film. Normally I enjoy Brendan Frasier movies, but this one just sort of lay there, flat. Oh, it had some nice bits here and there (especially the surprise cameo in the prison), and Chris Kattan was funny as the organ donor/gymnast. But I never really cared about Stu or Julie or what happened to them. Besides, my son had it pegged when he saw the advertisements for this film: By the Director of A Nightmare Before Christmas. Of course they wanted everyone to think of Tim Burton, and the focus of most commercials was the weird, Tim Burton-esque sets and characters. But they never let you see the credits very closely, and why? Because Tim Burton has nothing to do with this film (and, a quick check of IMDB shows that indeed, Tim Burton was not the director, but was the writer of A Nightmare Before Christmas; so no one actually lied in any of the commercials, but I believe they did intentionally mislead the public.)

So I give a 5 out of 10. See it if you're bored and it comes to a second-run theatre near you.

OK, I admit it... I am a Highlander fan. I admit I liked the TV series with Adrian Paul much better than the movies (yes, even the first movie.) So I was anticipating this to be a really good movie, since it was based on the TV series and not on the movies (fans of the Highlander movies will thus be disappointed -- Endgame is not consistent with the earlier movies, just as the movies themselves were not consistent with each other.)

In concept, this was a good movie; however, many things contributed to make it less good than it could have been. Others have already mentioned the choppy editing, and the scenes that were obviously left on the cutting room floor. The fight scenes are pretty incredible, especially the ones featuring Adrian Paul as Duncan Macleod. Bruce Payne should be given the William Shatner award for Overacting; he really chews up the scenery as Jacob Kell.

The main theme of this movie is redemption, facing the repercussions of the choices we make in our life. The subtext of the movie is the handing-off of the Highlander franchise from Christopher Lambert (who, for an "immortal", has obviously aged quite a bit from the first movie) to Adrian Paul, who is younger and more athletic than Lambert.

My main gripe, as a fan of the series, is that it seems the writer(s) did very little research into the TV series history, since there are so many inconsistencies with Duncan's past. Just to mention one: In the series, much was made of the fact that Duncan had never been married (indeed, was fated NEVER to be married), and that his one true love, Tessa, was killed shortly after they were engaged. Now we find out that Duncan had indeed been married before -- oh, well, so much for research. This could easily have been overcome by simply NOT HAVING KATE AND DUNCAN GET MARRIED prior to his "killing" her to make her immortal; they could still have been madly in love, and be engaged to be married. A nitpick, sure, but then, why make it a Highlander movie if you're not going to be internally consistent with the Highlander (TV) universe?

So, the movie scores well for the brotherly relationship between Conner and Duncan, especially the poignant rooftop scene, and for the great fight sequences (especially between Duncan and Jin, played by Donnie Yen.) But the movie loses points for its confusing editing, and for its inconsistencies with previous Highlander (TV series) history. Still, the closing scene, with "Bonnie Portmore" playing, was a nice touch (but why wasn't the song listed in the closing credits?)

Rating: 6 out of 10

I really had high hopes for this movie, because I greatly enjoyed "Something About Mary" and I more often than not like Jim Carrey, and of course Renee Zellweger is wonderful. But this movie spent far too much time taking the low road, with really crude sexual humor (even more so than "Something about Mary"), and racist stereotypes. Some parts of it were funny, but overall it was very disappointing. And don't make the mistake of taking preteens to see this movie -- I saw several families at the matinee showing with 10 and 12 year-old kids, and I have to say I was embarrassed by the crude humor in this movie (the little girl in front of me was giggling at the dildo jokes -- I bet her mother had a lot of explaining to do about that one!)

Rating: 4 out of 10, only because Renee Zellweger is in it, and the closing credits are pretty cute.

Much has been made of the fact that Tarsem Singh, the director, also made the REM video "Losing my Religion." The imagery in this movie is very similar to that of the REM video, and is absolutely stunning, and often disturbing. However, cinematography alone does not a movie make. There also need to be believable characters and a compelling story. While I enjoyed the film, because of the cinematography and the basic underlying premise (the technology that allows a psychotherapist to enter the mind of her patient), loose ends and plot holes left me feeling disappointed at the end.

Jennifer Lopez, as the child psychologist Catharine Deane, was at her best during the surreal scenes inside the killer's mind, but in the "real world", she didn't seem to fit (Dr. Kent even alludes to the fact that Ms. Deane was unimpressive in her interview -- perhaps that was the intent of the director, to have Ms. Deane seem more alive in the dream world?) Vince Vaughn, as FBI agent Peter Novak, is excellent in his portrayal of a driven man haunted by a past failing, and also (it is hinted) by his own abused past... but here we are only offered tantalizing bits, and are never given any deeper knowledge of his character. I was hoping this aspect would be more fully explored when he entered the dream world as well, but it was not.

Vincent D'Onofrio was both disturbing and, simultaneously, pitiable as the serial killer Carl Stargher. In one of the most moving scenes, Ms. Deane confronts him as he relives the murder of his first victim -- and tells her of the time he was baptized and his father broke three of his ribs. It takes a fine actor to be able to convey the menace of this character and at the same time elicit sympathy from the audience.

One major plot hole gapes in this movie -- after Agent Novak enters the mind of the killer, he finds a clue that eventually leads to the discovery of the missing victim. However, that clue was there all along, and did not need to be discovered in the mind of the killer. How could a group of agents who are so thorough as to find a dog hair that eventually is traceable to the dog's owner, miss following up on an obvious clue in the killer's basement? Of course, if they had followed up on the clue, we wouldn't have needed to enter the mind of the killer, and we would have missed out on all the wonderful cinematography. This, then, is where the movie falls short for me... the suspension of disbelief, not for the remarkable technology, but for the FBI agents being stupid.

Rating: 7 out of 10, for the cinematography, and the fact that they showed clips from the 1973 French animated film, "Fantastic Planet".

For baby-boomers who grew up during the space race, this is a fun movie, from the opening b&w scenes of the early test flights to the launch of the shuttle with its geriatric crew. The casting of the younger versions of our heroes was well done; Toby Stephens in particular deserves mention for his ability to mimic the Clint Eastwood squint. Tommy Lee Jones and Clint Eastwood are certainly believable in their parts, and Donald Sutherland is quite funny as the "ladies' man". James Cromwell and William Devane also do credible jobs as the project manager and flight director. The only one who seemed out of place was James Garner -- I like him as an actor, but I don't think he really fit the character.

Most of the movie (about 80 minutes) is spent in leading up to the space mission -- the political maneuvering, the hidden agenda, the training of our geriatric heroes and the tension between them and the young hotshots. The actual space mission only occupied the last 40 minutes of the movie. And while some of the scenes were extremely well-done, others pushed the bounds of credibility a little too far. Still, when the movie was over, in spite of several very-predictable scenes, I felt that I had enjoyed it -- and the final scene (no spoilers) had several people in the audience laughing and cheering.

Rating: 7 out of 10

I'm not going to waste much time reviewing this film, other than to say that, like so much else by Morgan and Wong, it is filled with half-developed neat ideas that never quite come to fruition. Otherwise, it is a fairly standard teen splatter-fest, with a really lame ending. I saw it for a buck at a second-run theatre on a hot and humid afternoon, so it wasn't a complete waste of money or time.

Rating: 4 out of 10

As a fan of the original Rocky and Bullwinkle show, I was somewhat looking forward to this movie. However, I waited until it came to the local second-run theatre so I could see it for fifty cents, in case it was disappointing. Boy, was I right! Someone tried way too hard to make this film clever and witty, with too many puns and self-references -- the writer should have been introduced to the concept of "less is more." There's even a direct reference to "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" (as in, "what about that Roger Rabbit movie?" -- not even the least bit subtle), the ultimate example of this type of movie done right.

If you're looking for a movie that both adults and kids can enjoy, go see Chicken Run, or rent Muppets from Space. If you are desperate for something to do with your child on a rainy day, it might be worth seeing at a second-run theatre... but just barely, and then only for the (brief) appearances by Jonathan Winters (although your child will probably be more thrilled by the Keenan and Kel appearance in the middle of the movie.)

Rating: 3 out of 10

Wow! As a fan of the Wallace and Gromit animations, I had high expectations for this film. I was not disappointed. Nick Park and Peter Lord have created an ideal film for both adults and children. This film has both dramatic and comedic elements clearly intended to be appreciated by adults, along with plenty of references to classic POW films such as The Great Escape and Stalag 17 (and even some Star Trek references toward the end.) For the children, there are the talking chickens and rats, and plenty of slapstick comedy and action sequences to keep them glued to their seats (this I know for certain, as I took my 4-year-old nephew Evan and eight-year-old niece Lauren, and even my normally-squirming nephew sat mesmerized during the final escape sequence.) Even the one bit likely to scare small children (one of the chickens is taken to the chopping block) takes place mostly off-camera, and neither my niece nor my nephew seemed bothered by it.

If you're not familiar with Nick Park's other work, see this movie and then go find his Wallace and Gromit animations. If you're at all squeamish about seeing a 'G' rated film, borrow some kids and take them to see it. But by all means see this film -- we need to encourage the development of more quality films for children (as well as adults) such as this one!

Rating: 9 out of 10

While some may fault this movie for not being 100% faithful to the continuity of the comic book, it is without a doubt the best adaptation to film of any comic, including Tim Burton's Batman movies. Fast-paced yet remarkably easy to follow, even for non-comic fans, the movie conveys all the information necessary to understand the who and the what without becoming bogged down in exposition.

Casting in this film was well-done, with a few strokes of luck (in particular, having Hugh Jackman take the place of Dougray Scott actually worked out for the better, given Scott's performance in M:I-2) Patrick Stewart was perfect as Professor Xavier, as was Ian McKellan as Magneto. What I particularly enjoyed was the on-screen relationship between these two former-friends-now-enemies, which was carried off beautifully by these two fine actors.

The rest of the cast performed well, and the cameos by various other mutants at Xavier's school ("Mutant High") was fun. From a continuity perspective, several things about the school didn't make much sense -- Bobby "Iceman" Drake was far too young, and Xavier listing Storm as one of his original recruits was also incorrect (the original team consisted of Iceman, Cyclops, Jean Grey, the Beast, and Angel, whereas Storm didn't join the team until the revamp that added Wolverine, Nightcrawler, Colossus and others in the late 70's, in Giant-sized X-men #1.) However, this is a minor nit to pick, one that would not be noticed by most non-fans and which does not detract from the movie in the least.

The door is obviously left open for more stories, and hopefully the movie will be successful enough to justify more.

My one quibble is that the movie seemed a little on the short side (running time was 95 minutes.) Several scenes felt rushed, in particular Jean Gray's speech at the beginning. However, more exposition might have slowed down the movie too much, which would also have generated complaints. As it is, we have a fine action film which serves to introduce the X-men to the non-comic-fan audience, and that's a very good thing indeed.

Rating: 8 out of 10

I was a little wary of this movie, given that I generally don't fully appreciate the Wayans brothers' brand of humor. But I gamely went along with my friends to watch it last night. First, this movie would have been better without the questionable material (which should have qualified it for an NC17 rating.) Second, the acting in this movie is much better than the material. Third, most of the fun in this movie comes from figuring out which movies they are spoofing or out-right ripping off. By my count, they stole whole scenes from both the Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer franchises, and peppered the movie heavily with direct and indirect references to other recent flicks, many not even of the horror genre: American Beauty, Matrix, Very Bad Things, American Pie, even Michael Flatley's Lord of the Dance (or was that Riverdance?) And I believe the bathroom scene with the male organ could have been a reference to the famous shower scene from Porky's, but I might be reading too much into it.

And yet, this movie reminds me of a Woody Allen routine about life being like airline food -- it's bad, and they don't give you enough. Yes, some of the humor is strained, and most is juvenile... but the movie is also too short (run time claims to be 88 minutes, but it must have some really long credits, because we were in and out of the theatre in 85 minutes, including the coming attractions.) Bottom line is that I wish I had seen it at a second-run theatre for $1, or at least at a matinee -- it's worth seeing if you like picking out pop culture references, or if you're really into juvenile humor, but it isn't worth the $7 or $8 most theatres get for an evening showing.

Titan A.E., the newest animated feature from Don Bluth, is a terrific SF movie with fantastic 3D animation. That being said, I would also say that, as with most SF movies, the story was pretty predictable, and the 2D animation of the characters was typical of Mr. Bluth's earlier films. While most SF aficionados will certainly recognize various plot elements (and even certain background elements -- my friends were sure they saw a Death Star in the drifter colony conglomeration), it is the weaving of those elements together with the wonderful 3D animation that make this movie so enjoyable. Yes, we've seen the chase through the asteroid belt or nebula cloud done in other movies, but using it as a vehicle to show off some terrific 3D animation effects was both clever and entertaining. Overall a very enjoyable experience.

What a pleasant surprise! I honestly expected this movie to be your typical "chick-flick" melodrama, and was expecting to be miserable as I sat next to my wife watching it. I was totally unprepared for how much I enjoyed this movie. While I thought Natalie Portman did an adequate job as Novalee Nation, it was the performances of Ashley Judd as Lexie Coop and especially Stockard Channing (of whom I've never really been a fan) as "Sister" Husband that made this movie for me. In some ways, the quirky characters in this movie reminded me of the characters in Mumford, although in that movie, too much emphasis was placed on their quirkiness, whereas in Where the Heart Is, the characters felt more like real people. Joan Cusack and Sally Field have relatively minor roles, but still carry off their characters well. James Frain is great as Forney Hall, the genius caretaker of the library who falls for Novalee. A great script that never really falls into melodrama, and which features a few unexpected turns. If you are looking for a movie to see with your girlfriend or wife (or both), this is the one -- much more palatable than either The Horse Whisperer or Message in a Bottle.

If you want to see a movie with outstanding acting, this is not the one for you. Several of the actors featured in this film were vastly underutilized, especially Robert DuVall. On the other hand, there are a few nice character moments -- Cage's character "Memphis" Raines explaining to his brother that it was never about the money; the whole gang getting psyched for the job by listening to "Low Rider"; Raines asking his mother at the diner for permission to break his earlier promise to her.

But, if you like cool cars and car chases, and you don't mind turning off your brain for 2 hours (and there's nothing wrong with that, especially if the theatre is nice and cool and it's hot and muggy outside), it's worth seeing. But I'd recommend seeing it at a matinee or a second run theatre. Better than Mission: Impossible 2, in my opinion -- much more fun to watch, and more believable (even the car jump scene at the end is more believable than most of the stunts in MI:2)

First, let me say that I only recently discovered Jackie Chan films, so I am not one of his die-hard fans. However, this is a thoroughly enjoyable movie, filled with Jackie's trademarked fight-scenes and self-effacing humor. Owen Wilson is passable as laid-back cowboy Roy O'Bannon, but his anachronistic surfer psycho-babble would have become annoying very quickly if it had been featured any more prominently in the film. Instead, he serves as an acceptable foil to Jackie Chan's character, and the chemistry between the two actually works in most places, unlike the somewhat forced comaraderie between Chris Tucker and Jackie in Rush Hour (although I liked that film too, this one is definitely better.) In fact, part of the humor in this movie are the obvious anachronisms, similar to the humor in "The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr.", but in this case, less is definitely more. I particularly enjoyed the scene with Jackie smoking the peace pipe with the Indians, and also the bathtub/Chinese drinking game, just for sheer fun that was evident in both scenes.

Overall, I'd say it's Jackie Chan's best movie to date, and definitely worth the full price of admission.

This movie exemplifies the characteristics of a really good science fiction story. The science provides the basis for the plot, but does not dominate or interfere with it; this leaves the characters free to tell a wonderful story with heart and edge-of-your-seat suspense, without being over-encumbered by special effects and typical "sci-fi" elements. Once you accept the premise that two people can talk across a 30-year gap in time due to sunspot activity (and kudos to the producers for providing continuity across the years via real science guy Brian Greene), the rest of the film flows quite naturally from this device. I would also say that this is probably an ideal date flick -- a little something for everyone, including an opportunity for guys to show their "sensitive" sides to their girlfriends, while at the same time providing enough action and excitement to qualify as a typical "guy flick."

My first reaction after watching this movie was "That was nothing like the Mission: Impossible TV series that I remember from my childhood." The other reaction I had was that if I never see Tom Cruise perform a slow-motion flip or cartwheel again in my life, it will be too soon.

Basically, if you want to see a loud, brainless action flick with few surprises and with Tom Cruise jumping around performing ridiculous stunts, skip the first half and go see the second half of this movie. If you want to see John Woo try to impress everyone with lots of slow-motion shots and watch Tom Cruise over-act in a tawdry melodrama, go see the first half of this movie and slip out before the second half. But if you want to see a real Mission: Impossible movie and not an expensive combination rip-off of James Bond and the Matrix, go rent the first movie, or better yet, watch reruns of the TV series on F/X.

I've been looking forward to this movie for many months, and I must say I was not disappointed. Overall, the movie is an intense experience -- from the opening crash scene to the final surprise. Listed below are a few of my favorite scenes:

1) Riddick "dancing" directly in the face of the creature to keep inside its "blindspot." Very well done, as was the whole special effect of the creatures' sonar "vision."

2) The washed-out colors during the daylight sequence -- definitely gave you the feeling of being in a glaring, sun-baked desert.

3) Of course, the great eclipse scene.

4) Riddick killing one of the creatures, and his retort "Didn't know who he was F**KING with!"

5) And of course, the white-knuckled crash-landing scene -- I was digging my heels into the floor trying to get that ship to stop!

The only two nitpicks I have are (1) the ecology of the creature -- there are far too many of those large predators to be sustainable in that barren area, and (2) the double sets of rings around the large planet -- should not have been parallel, should have been concentric. I'm sure someone out there will be happy to go on about all the "obvious" scientific shortcomings of the film, but these were the only two that occurred to me while watching it.

I saw it at a bargain matinee, with DTS on a decent-sized screen, and I think that makes a big difference. I'll be seeing it again this week (for full price) with a different set of friends... and I don't even mind.