Reviews

Last night I experienced third viewing of Wes Anderson's "The Royal Tennenbaums" since it opened Friday. I know that sounds obsessive, but I've been quite fascinated with this film and besides, I have plenty of spare time on my hands. On the basis of his first 2 films "Bottle Rocket" and "Rushmore", Wes Anderson has become the only 90's-bred filmmaker to really earn my devotion. He's more prolific than Tarentino, more original than Guy Ritchie and more interesting than PT Anderson, so that made "Royal" my must-see film this year. I am not going to go into a long analyzation or critique of this film as I am sure plenty of other users on here are doing that already. Instead, I will simply say that I adore this film and give some of the reasons why. First off, the cast is magnificent. Gene Hackman carries every scene he's in with vibrance, energy and realism. Likewise, Anjelica Houston is marvelous as she makes her character endearing through her subtle performance. Then there are the two I was most skeptical of: Ben Stiller and Gwynth Paltrow. Although I have always found them to be immensely talented performers, I didn't know if the could convey the depth and quirkiness that a director like Anderson would probably demand without it coming off as nothing more than insincere mugging. I was totally wrong. Stiller plays the straight man-an uptight big brother with a deep streak of loneliness that he can't seem to hide. As for Ms. Paltrow, her performance may be her best yet-with her raccoon eyes, fur coats and Izon dresses, she's equal parts heartbreaking and hilarious. But I must say that I think the movie's secret weapon (and surprise breakout performance) is Luke Wilson's Richie Tennenbaum. He finds the perfect balance of sadness, isolation and loss that made him so endearing I never felt I was watching an actor perform. And of course, Bill Murray and Danny Glover can do no wrong. Likewise, the music was perfect and this is the first (and probably only) film to feature music by 4 of my all time favorite bands, the Rolling Stones, Ramones, The Clash and the Beatles. Actually, the latter was a muzak version of "Hey Jude", but it's still a Beatles song! I am not sure if I can place this film above "Rushmore", but it's certainly on par with that classic. At any rate, hats off to Wes Anderson and Owen Wilson for creating what is instantly one of the most memorable films of the new century. RATING: A-

"House On Sorority Row" is one of the many nearly forgotten slasher flicks from the genre's golden age in the early 1980's. Directed by Mark Rosman, a former protege of Brian Depalma, "House" is a refreshingly stylish film from an era that produced mostly crap. IN fact, the most frustrating aspect of this film is just how good it probably could have been. Despite the lively direction and strong performances, the film eventually falls apart thanks to a clumsy and often laughable screenplay that does nothing to further what is actually a fairly clever story. The film's aforementioned strengths, also aided by a classy score from Richard Band, keep this movie from sinking to the level of such trash as say, "The Burning". Rosman's stylized direction shows plenty of DePalma influence, but flare can only carry a movie so far before it is at the mercy of the script, and this film has far too many moments ranging from contrived to downright silly that prevent "House" from being elevated beyond the status of a marginal slasher flick.

"Cape Fear" is one of my favorite thrillers of the 90's. Although I agree with many critics and users that this film too often gets bogged down in contemporary horror (aka slasher flick) trappings, it's redeemed by intelligent writing and an outstanding cast. Robert DeNiro plays Max Cady, a whacked-out ex con just released from prison and dead set on destroying the life of the defense attorney (Nick Nolte) who let him get set up the river 14 years prior. By including Notle's wife and daughter (Jessica Lange and Juliette Lewis respectively) in his diabolical plans, Cady sets off a trigger of events that quickly turns his entire world upside down. Martin Scorsese directed this remake of the 60's b flick of the same name, but his version adds some fantastic new dimensions to the story that take this film beyond the standard thriller status of the original. As stated before, the only problem with this film is in it's tendency to allow itself to shift from a tense, suggestive thriller that leaves you on the edge of your seat to a blatant horror flick that instead leaves you cringing. However, even at it's most outrageous, "Cape Fear" never becomes too unbelievable thanks to the cast. DeNiro has never before or since been more menacing; with his portrayal of a self-educated, manipulative redneck pervert he commands the attention of the viewer every solitary second he's on the screen. As Sam Bowden, Nolte does paints a portrait of a sympathetic yet highly flawed character that's every bit as strong as DeNiro's. As Sam's wife, Jessica Lange goes a long way to elaborate on the character of the wife from the original; while the 60's version was a typical ornament female character, Lange brings the same sympathetic humanity to the film as Nolte. Juliette Lewis really got noticed for the first time here, and deservedly so-she's charming, innocent, cute and unnerving-just like your average teenage girl. With his direction, Martin Scorses turns "Cape Fear" into somewhat of a hyperbole, with varying success. The frantic camera work and extreme color schemes become contradictory-at once his style damage the attempts at suspense while taking the tension to extreme heights. Aided by Bernard Herrman's intense score (adapted from the original version of the film), "Cape Fear"-though flawed-is ultimately a fun, fascinating and often terrifying film that is part psychological thriller and part slasher flick.

Considering the 70's was a decade of monumental proportions as far as films went, it was a shame the 80's had to produce such dreck, especially where horror films are concerned. In the 70's we had "The Exorcist", "Halloween", "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", "Phantasm"-just to name a few. The 80's did produce a small but stellar group of classics, however, including "Evil Dead" 1 & 2, "A Nightmare On Elm Street", "An American Werewolf In London" and, of course, "Re-Animator". Like "Werewolf" and the "Evil Dead" films, part of "Re-Animator"'s success and notoriety is the film's deliciously sinister blend of horror and humor. Wait let me correct that-perverse horror and sick humor. In accordance with the decade that birthed it, this film is typically over the top and totally gratuitous, pulling out all the stops at every turn. Jeffrey Combs heads a great cast as Herbert West, a strange and eccentric but brilliant young doctor/scientist who has perfected a syrum that can reanimate the dead. Circumstances get out of hand when a medical student and his fiance (Bruce Abbott & Barbara Crampton) get involved in West's work and a plagarist rival doctor (David Gale) plots to steal his idea. Horror and hilarity ensue from there on, thanks to imaginitive visual effects coupled with clever dialogue. For nitpickers like myself there are a few minor inconsistencies in the screenplay, but it does very little to hinder the film. Ironically, several scenes that wound up on the cutting room floor (included on the dvd) would have fleshed out those minor story flaws, but they were excised-and probably rightly so-in the name of pacing. Besides, any flaws in writing are easily forgotten about thanks to the terrific performances. Here is a cast that really brought the characters "to life" so to speak; Combs as the nerdy scientist and Gale's lecherous Dr. Hill are both standouts. And Stuart Gordon's strong direction holds the whole thing together even when the film threatens to be crushed by it's own outlandishness. For those interested, check out the sequel "Bride of Re-Animator" that followed 4 years later. It doesn't hold a candle to this one, but it's plenty of fun in it's own right.

Woody's adaption (I use the term very loosely) of the book of the same name is typical of Allen's earlier work in it's outrageous content, but this one is far more vulgar than anything else he had previously done. But really, how can you satirize sex and NOT make it dirty? This collection of sketches is hit or miss at times: the Italian film spoof is a noble but ultimately lackluster effort. Other sketches, including the much talked-about final segment, are quite hilarious. My personal favorite is the middle segment with Gene wilder as a doctor who falls in love with a sheep. Probably when you get down to it this is the sickest portion of the movie, but Gene Wilder's brilliant performance keeps it strangely dignified. It's a shame he and Woody Allen didn't work together again-the coupling of Woody's wit with Gene's brilliant comedic timing could have been a sure-fire bet for big laughs. At any rate, if you haven't seen this one yet be sure and check it out.

"The Wicker Man" is a subtle, seductive and very powerful film that combines religion, suspense, music and sex. Produced in the early 70's, the studio mistreatment of the film that followed is legendary, as is the cult that grew around the film over the last 3 decades. 30 years later, "The Wicker Man" is still a very powerful film that is often incorrectly classified as a horror film. It's definitely a suspense piece, and the horror elements are undeniable-but it's far too broad a film to stick in a single category. Edward Woodward gives one of the film's numerous fine performances as Sgt. Howie, a police officer who has come to a small scottish island in search of a reportedly missing girl. What he encounters is a town full of eccentric and downright strange people, all under the rule of Lord Summerisle (a commanding Christopher Lee). Time reveals to Howie, a devout christian, that he is in a town full of paganists. I will leave everything else in the film up to the viewer. It's all too good to give away here. I will say that the film is full of beautiful music and photography, intelligent writing and captivating performances. Truly a film like no other, I recommend "The Wicker Man" to anyone interested in avoiding the conventional trappingsof mainstream cinema.

There's a key line spoken by Seymour (Steve Buscemi) in "Ghost World" where he says, in reference to society's declining standards, "Give everybody a Big Mac and a pair of Nikes and they're happy." That just about sums up the film for me. "Ghost World" is both a commentary on the commercialism and hypocrasy that dominates modern culture as well as a look at social alienation. The film begins as a story about Enid and Rachel (Thora Birch and Scarlett JOhnson), 2 teenagers who have just graduated from high school and are now facing the prospect of getting out into the "real world". Enid is a stark, sullen and hopelessly cynical girl, while the equally odd Rebecca has a slightly more positive outlook on life. Enid forms a friendship with Seymour, a lonely and similarly alienated 40-ish record collector; this relationship becomes the heart of the film. Enid explains her attraction to Seymour by saying he's the "opposite of everything I hate in the world." They are kindred spirits, not because of similar tastes or interests, but rather because they share an inherent feeling of alienation. They're both likable but highly flawed people; for all their cynicism and keen social observation, Enid and Seymour are also emotionally underdeveloped. That aspect makes the leads even more realistic-I have always said the best kind of hero in a film is one that has more personal issues than the rest of the characters. Thanks to outstanding performances from all of the actors involved in this picture, watching the relationship between Enid and Seymour is both touching and intriguing. Back to what I took as the film's main idea, "Ghost World" is a honest and startlingly funny look at pop culture and commercialism that might appeal most to those with more esoteric tastes and interests. I must say, and this probably sounds corny, but this is the first film I have seen in a very long time that "spoke to me". I can relate to the frustrations voiced by director Terry Zwigoff and writer Danile Clowes in regards to society and people in general. Although I generally have an easier time functioning in the world than, say, Seymour, I can relate with great empathy to the problems he, Enid and, to a lesser degree, Rebecca all have to face. I will go ahead and say now that this film is hands-down one of my favorites of the year, but I don't expect it to be everybody's cup of tea. "Ghost World" welcomes with open arms people with feelings and frustrations like myself. But there's no denying that I and other like-minded individuals are a minority, and a film like this will never appeal to an audience beyond that. It's kind of sad, but it's a telling reflection of the way our culture is and it's only fitting that "Ghost World" will only ever be appreciated by what is essentially a handful of people. But with that in mind, if you think this would be a film that parallels your own views, I can highly recommend "Ghost World": it's a beautifully shot and acted film that is smart, funny, sad, touching and always thought provoking.

Love triangles, illicit affairs, neurotic banter and strange chemistry: these things are all trademarks of every drama Woody has made in the last 15 years, and all of these elements came together for the first time in "Manhattan". Like most film buffs and Woody Allen fans, I like "Manhattan" very much. It's funny, engaging film that is also a feast for the ears and eyes. And just like real every day life, the film unfolds with a series of haphazard events. I can also relate to this film on a very personal level, but I won't go into those reasons as they're inconsequential. I'll go into the film by saying it is hard to really like any of the characters in this film; most of them are hopelessly self-involved and tragically misinformed. You know you're in trouble when Woody's character is the most level-headed in the picture! But for me that only aids the film's realism; we spend every day of our lives involving ourselves in ill-advised and even ignorant activities. Woody's characters aren't the typical Julia Roberts and Freddie Prinz Jr's that always say and do the right thing at the right moment. Being able to portray people the as they are-individuals with real faults and genuine problems-has always been one of the director's strengths. One of the main ideas of the film is that cerebral people purposely, albeit maybe subconsciously, create their own troubles. The virtue of being intelligent, cultured, admired and perhaps even wealthy is not enough for these people. Or perhaps it's too much. The characters here dig their own graves so to speak and later hate themselves for it-but it's the only they can function. I think like-minded people will agree with me that many so-called "happy" individuals in this world mindlessly wander through life, content with their television commercials and fast food and shopping malls and Julia Roberts movies. The same thing taht allows these people to be perfectly happy is possibly the same thing that drives more open-minded folks to challenge everything, including their own well-being. I imagine I am getting way off track now, but I feel everything that I am saying has some relevance to the film. Maybe that's all subjective, but that's what I take from the film. The thing I can most objectively identify from "Manhattan" would have to be the gorgeous photography coupled with a beautiful George Gershwin score. I think that is the first thing people usually notice about this film, the fact that it is a very loving homage from the director to the only place in the world he would want to call home. The story, to me anyway, has little relation to the setting-these kind of situations can happen in any city in the world. That's part of the beauty of this film-it has 2 very different objectives; part human drama and part love letter to NYC, Woody Allen blends the 2 ideas seamlessly to create a minor masterpiece.

After I watched "Blues Brothers 2000" I realized that almost 2 hours of my life had been totally wasted and that I would not get those hours back. For that I am bitter, so I am going to devote just a little more of my life to this film so I can spread the word and let everyone know just how incredibly poor it is. I would have resisted normally-as I stated, I have already lost enough time to this film-but I couldn't stand all of the people on here defending it in their user comments. True, a few people despised, but many were saying things like "not that bad", blah blah. And that's fine-we're all well entitled to our opinion. But this movie OFFENDED ME, and I feel the need to warn others about the abomination that is called "Blues Brothers 2000". True, this is probably just because I am forever a huge fan of the original, but let's examine what made the original so good: great music, dry humor, a charming cast and the occasional twisted idea. With the exception of SOME good music, the new film is lacking in ALL of these departments. The writing is tired, the jokes are lame, and the "gimmicks" (i.e. adding a little boy and a black blues brother) are contrived. Watching BB2000 is like watching a train, a fuel tanker and a busload of little old amish ladies crash into a children's orphanage on Christmas, except worse. Blues Brothers fans, avoid this one at all costs.

"Walk Like A Man" has a special place in my heart, but not because it's a great (or even good, really) piece of cinema. It's just one of those films that you grow up seeing on HBO as a child every afternoon and, to a fat kid that didn't get out much, that's great entertainment. It's silly, sappy and, like most proper 80's flicks, would probably only be about 45 minutes long if you took out all of the "musical montages". I am not even going to bother with a plot summary-you wouldn't be reading this if you have not already seen the film. But I will say this: while watching it again recently as an adult who has graduated to the more sophisticated likes of Woody Allen and Ingmar Bergman, I was shocked by how much I still enjoyed it! The cast is very funny and entertaining and they gamely tackle the silly material they are given. I especially liked the underrated Christopher Lloyd as the evil older brother and Colleen Camp as his lush of a wife. I don't know, maybe it's just the connotation of the film and the fond childhood memories of watching it that come with it, but continental tastes be damned-I like this lousy little film!

I only recently got to see Argento's "Opera" in it's true entirety for the first time in recent months thanks to the wonderful dvd release from the always classy Anchor Bay label. For years the only outlet I had to view this film was the grotesquely recut American version "Terror At The Opera"(snicker). I have always been of the opinion, even viewing the US version, that this was probably Argento's best piece of technical work. That became even more apparent with the dvd release: every second of the movie beautifully utilizes the 2:35 scope the director shot it in, and virtually each frame becomes eye candy. However, splendid as it may be to look at, I always felt "Opera" was one of the director's weakest efforts where script was concerned. Plainly put, some of the story lines, dialogue and character interaction is just absurd. It's only my opinion, so I am not even going to specify scenes so as not to warp anybody's perception of the film. You may take from it what you want to take from it. But I found these problems in the writing unavoidable and I imagine like minds will notice the same inconsistencies. That's not to say the entire film is horribly written-there are a few rather ingenious moments as well as what may be perhaps the most thrilling death scene Argento ever shot. Yes, I find his death scenes to be thrilling-I cannot help it if I am both sick and evil. Incidentally, I love this film. I think of "Opera" as a masterpiece with flaws, and while the writing gets sillier every time I watch, Argento's direction just looks more brilliant. I fully recommend this film to horror buffs and fans of highly stylized cinema.

"The World According To Garp" introduced me to several things dear to me when I saw it as a child: the Beatles (through the opening credits song), Robin Williams (okay, he's not dear to me, but I like his dramatic stuff) and an early understanding of what "bittersweet" meant. To be honest, I have never read John Irving's book. Although I probably will one day, I enjoy the movie too much and right now I don't want my perception of it altered. Beautifully acted, written, and photographed, "Garp" just moves me everytime I watch it. To this day, I haven't seen Robin Williams or Glenn Close play better roles than they do here, and John Lithgow is just a hoot as Roberta. Back to the bittersweet thing, I love the way this film will have you moved to tears one minute and laughing the next, just like real life. Obviously, there are a plethora of movies out there that achieve the same effect, this one just happens to be a personal favorite. Dramatic but never heavyhanded, funny but never silly, "The World According To Garp" is a simply perfect movie experience.

Along with "Evil Dead 2","American Werewolf In London" is probably the most perfect blend of horror and comedy ever committed to film. I like that because I find those 2 styles to be the purest forms of cinema in relation to human emotion: the anxiety of fear and the joy of laughter. Dramas are fine, but essentially we're getting our emotions manipulated when we find ourselves crying for the characters on screen. But jumping at a sudden scare or having a good belly laugh are certainly more primal reactions, and neither require having our emotions or mentalities toyed with to get a reaction. "An American Werewolf In London" certainly delivers the goods in both departments. The dark (and admittedly often sick) humor often provokes laugh out loud reactions from the viewer, and at the same time the horror scenes are simply the scariest werewolf scenes I have ever scene. Now allow me to get out of all the theoretical stuff and into the "meat" of the movie. I won't bother with the plot since everyone else on here has probably summarized it quite nicely. I will talk about the things I like about this film. Starting with the direction, John Landis simply does a knockout job. He guides the film with enthusiasm and style, keeping things lighthearted at the right moments and mercilessly scaring the audience the rest of the time. The cast here seems to know exactly what they're doing as well; David Naughton and Griffin Dunne both handle their roles with a great balance of serious and silly, and Jenny Agutter is just adorable. Of course no review would be complete with mention of Rick Baker's groundbreaking makeup effects. But I can't really say anything that hasn't been said about his work a thousand times over, so let me just say that this stuff still looks just as good today as it ever did! If you can handle a potent combination of horror and humor, do yourself a favor and check out "An American Werewolf In London".

Let me start by saying that "Suspiria" is not my favorite Dario Argento film-that would be "Phenomena"-but it's certainly a classic in it's own right that gets better with each viewing. As with most Argento films (at least in my opinion), plot is secondary to style, and this film has style to spare. All of the director's usual trademarks (colorful lighting, matter-of-fact visual statements, gory, elaborate death scenes, etc) are here in full-force as we also find Argento exploring a more supernatural avenue that he had not visited in his previous work at the time. Rather than using Hitchcockian murder mysteries, "Suspiria" tells it's story with nightmarish images and surreal setpieces. The set design and lighting make for some of the most visually stunning work I have seen in any film; oversaturated colors often give the viewer the impression the film is either "bleeding" like one of the story's victims or the screen itself is illuminated by some otherwordly supernatural glow. Sometimes we get both impressions at the same time and it always adds up to a stunning visual statement. Then there's the terrifying score by Goblin, a soundtrack that along with their score for "Deep Red" a friend of mine called the missing link between "Tubular Bells" and the score for "Halloween". Appropiately garish, Goblin's score is as memorable as Bernard Herrman's "Psycho" and, quite frankly, the film probably wouldn't be as frightening without it. Memorable for it's scenes of terror and admirable for it's technical merits, any horror fan worth his or her salt needs to check out "Suspiria".

I recently had the pleasure of viewing this lost classic in glorious 3-D at a midnight movie showing, not knowing what to expect but certainly not coming out disappointed. I do believe that somewhere in this badly shot, acted, and mic'd film there was a plot, but that's very secondary here. A film like "Wildcat Women" (aka "Black Lolita") these days is merely an excuse to have a good laugh at something so incredibly bad it's damn good. Highlights include: hilarious dialogue (when it's audible), lots of gratuitous nudity (some good, some unpleasant), outrageously bad "car chase" scenes, and 3-D effects so bad that the theatre was in awe at how good a piece of inanimate shrubbery looked in three dimension, truly a highlight special effects moment. The film does drag a bit in the middle, but a hilariously inept shootout finale redeems all. If you're in a town where you have access to films like this, be sure and check your midnight movie listings for this little gem. If a bad movie is your idea of a good time, you will not be disappointed!

I have loved the original "Re-Animator" since I first saw it as a demented little boy way back in 1986. So naturally, I was quite excited when I got the chance to see the sequel when it premiered on Cinemax in 90 or 91. Although I was satisfied with "Bride of Re-Animator" when I initially viewed, I some how managed to avoid seeing it again for the next decade. I am not quite sure why that is, especially considering I have been enjoying the original on dvd for quite some time now. Looking back I think it's because I had the realization that, as I have grown older and my tastes have matured, things that were "great" when I was kid are often terrible these days, rendering films that were merely "oky" even worse. In other words, I was afraid of watching "Bride" and just hating, thereby tarnishing the legacy created by the still fabulous original. To get to the point, I recently decided to take a chance and I broke down and bought "Bride" on dvd. Going into it with my expectations totally lowered (since I couldn't remember much from watching it 10 years prior), I was pleasantly surprised by this worthy sequel to one of my all time favorite horror flicks. Sure, "Bride" still somewhat pales by comparison, but it would be safe to say that it compares to the original the same way that the competent "Halloween 2" stands up to it's classic predecessor. In other words, this isn't a great flick, but much of the magic that made the original work is still here, and the film has a few surprises of it's own. I won't go into the plot because everybody else on here has already explained it, and besides, I find the plot to be one of the areas where "Bride" is most lacking. I will instead try to concentrate on the things I like about this film, namely, some snappy (and extremely DRY) one-liners, hilariously over-the-top gore effects and another great turn by Jeffrey Combs as the titular "re-animator". "Bride" relies on the mix of outrageous horror and dark comedy that defined the original, this time leaning just a little more towards the comedy side without becoming a parody of the first one. With stronger direction and more a more fleshed-out screenplay, I believe this one could have had the potential to be as good as the original-but who wants to see classic overshadowed? "Bride of Re-Animator" stands well on it's own and as a nice afterthought to the original it should please most fans. I also highly recommend the feature-loaded dvd release, and although some would argue this film gets a slightly grander dvd treatment than it deserves, who can really complain about a plethora of special features?

I got the feeling while I was watching "Rock Star" that this film was trying to do cinematically for the 80's hair metal craze what "Boogie Nights" did for the world of 70's porn. However, I would only call it coincidence that both films feature Mark Wahlberg in the lead. That is where the similarities stop though. While "Boogie" was a stylish, wickedly funny and often moving (not to mention realistic) look at it's subject, "Rock Star" is contrived, flat and largely unaffecting. Wahlberg does his part to redeem himself from his blank expression of a performance in "Planet of the Apes" here, playing a tribute band singer turned rock star with a very genuine feeling authenticity that allows you to sympathize with the charcter, even if he is-like EVERY other character in the movie-poorly written and underdeveloped. The former Marky Mark could look just as much in place working hardware in Wal-Mart as schmoozing at some Hollywood party, and that's a gift he's fortunate to have. The rest of the cast is pretty underwhelming; nobody's BAD by any means, but, like the direction, the cast is merely competent. Jennifer Aniston, cute and likable as always, ismore or less channeling her character from friends while the supporting players left no impression at all. Another problem with the film is that it cannot make up it's mind-one minute it's a cute, smirky running joke/homage to an era gone by (a la "Wedding Singer"), the next minute a "shocking behind the scenes look" at a world of debauchery and betrayal before finally settling as a ho-hum melodrama. While Wahlberg seems as if he knew exactly what he was doing with the character, the never quite finds it's own tone or rhythm, leaving the viewer with a film that's not wholly unpleasant, just unmemorable.

"Curse Of The Jade Scorpion" is, like last year's "Small Time Crooks", another lightweight and harmless offering that relies heavily on the charm of it's stars. And before I get started, I just have to one thing: folks, please drop the "Woody is too old for this" complaint, it's getting tired. I think if Sean Connery, Jack Nicholson and so many other "vintage" actors can be shown wooing women half their age then Woody can damn well do it too. Besides, you gotta admit for 65 the guy looks pretty good-I could buy him passing for 55 easily. The plot is relatively simple: a crime-caper with insurance theft investigator Woody and costar/company nemesis Helent Hunt unknowingly becoming jewel thieves after being hypnotized by David Odgen Stiers and his magical "jade scorpion". They spend the rest of the flick exchanging often hilarious banter while trying to solve crimes they have unwittingly committed themselves. Seeing Woody become "hypnotized" is a definite highlight of the movie and some of Woody's most expressive physical comedy in years. The rest of the cast including Dan Akroyd, Charlize Theron, (the great) Wallace Shawn, John Schuck, and Elizabeth Berkley is great-Woody's surefire direction really helps some of these actors (Theron and Hunt especially) turn in better-than-usual performances. Throw all that in with great production design and some fabulous 30's and 40's era jazz and you've got another swiftly entertaining film. The only complaint here is that "Curse" seems to lose steam after the first half, but it continues to coast by comfortably on the charm of it's lead stars. This a fun little film that I would recommend to most fans of the Woodman's work.

First off I need to address the "critics" both in print and on the internet (IMDB users included) who are just ripping this film to shreds because it's not "The Godfather" of the new "Citizen Kane". Hey folks, in case you haven;t noticed John Carpenter is NOT Federico Fellini. You say you're aware of that? So why are you people always expecting some kind of grand masterpiece from the man? He makes a living directing offhanded, mindless, fun popcorn flicks that usually pay homage to the films he grew up on. Following in the same vein as "Escape From L.A." and "Vampires", "Ghosts of Mars" is just a big dumb horror/action flick chock-full of dark humor, outlandish violence and plenty or irreverence. And that's it my friends, there's nothing else there! It is by NO means a great movie (and the man who directed "Halloween" and "The Thing" has had his share of great movies) and if that's what you're expecting then you might be better of skipping this one. If you enjoyed his last few films, then read on. The plot isn't much-basically another remake of "Rio Bravo" with plenty of elements of other Carpenter flicks like "Escape From New York" and "Assault on Precinct 13" thrown in. The time is the future and Natasha Henstridge is a member of a police crew assigned to pick up and transfer a dangerous criminal played by Ice Cube from a town on the now human-inhabited planet of Mars. She and her crew soon discovered that an ancient sleeping entity awoken by a mining crew (the titular "ghosts") is flying around the place and into unsuspecting people turning them into murderous, self-mutilating monsters. From there Henstridge and her crew must enlist the help of Cube and his criminal cohorts in order to get out of there alive. All hell ensues, and that's that. Henstridge is great in this role: she's believable if you don't try to take the film seriously, and no matter what she's doing she manages to be jaw-droppingly sexy. I am SO glad she ended up playing this role instead of the first casting choice of Courtney Love. Courtney's a good actress, but she could never have been as likable or as sexy as Natasha. Ice Cube basically plays the same role he always plays, but as always he approaches the character (a combination of Snake Plissken and Napoleon Wilson) with gusto. He's perfectly suited for the role and manages to work up genuine chemistry with costar Henstridge. The action scenes are good and often laced with Carpenter's brand of sick humor. One of thoe more interesting aspects of this film was the "Rashamon" inspired approach to the film by telling everything in flashbacks, sometimes even going so far as a flashback within a flashback within a flashback. Sounds confusing, but believe me it's NOT. I liked that approach and I'd say it went a long way in keeping this film from just being another boring action flick. Anyway, I think I have said enough. It narrows down to this: if you like Carpenter's films, go see this movie.

This film is truly one the crown jewels in the kingdom of So Bad It's Funny. This charmer was shot in the mid 80's and it follows the exploits of Mike Strauber, a schmuck who has the worst luck with women. Upon returning home from work he finds his big-breasted hottie wife doing the nasty with their best friend, he obliges them with a hilarious dramatic reaction before taking off in his gold Firebird to, uh, drive around for a long, long time. As the story unfolds, we see poor Mike suffer a nervous breakdown that results in hallucinations and self-mutilation. It's all the more tragic because this poor slob can't even get an IMAGINARY girl to score with him! Anyway, we spend the rest of the movie finding a masked, disfigured, murderous Mike out to exact revenge upon his good-for-nothing cheating wife with the great tits. Of course along the way he manages to kill a number of innocents including: a group of old people at a Bus Stop, a little leaguer, some cops, a couple of "punk rockers" and even a baby in carriage using a number of weapons including a submachine gun and a battle mace! "Truth Or Dare" showcases some of the worst acting, wrting, and music ever committed to film, and believe me, it all works in this film's favor! If you're looking for 90 minutes of sick, jaw-droppingly bad horror hilarity, this is the film for you!

I have been curious to see the film version of Gore Vidal's "Myra Breckinridge" ever since my brother told me about it. What he described to me was a strange, lewd, bizarre piece of camp highlighted by, among other things, the sight of Raquel Welch raping a man with a strap-on. Sounded too bad to be true, and sure enough he was right! From the very first frame you know you're in for a VERY different kind of viewing experience with this perverse little number. The film revolves around Myra (Welch-the sexiest star of the last 30 years is stunning to watch s usual), the recipient of a sex change operation who is followed by her former male alter-ego Myron (film critic Rex Reed!) in a confusing little bit of storytelling. What ensues is a fragmented, incoherent mess highlighted by fabulous costume design, wonderfully campy performances (especially by Welch and John Houston as a leering old cowboy pervert), and various bizarre occurrences (the aforementioned dildo rape). The crowning touch of camp has got to be Mae West (who came out of long retirement to do this little piece of trash) acting as if she NEVER left the golden age of cinema. She's truly a walking, talking, wrinkled piece of Hollywood history here. Now let me emphasize-THIS IS NOT A GOOD FILM, but a fun, trashy piece of camp meant to be enjoyed by those who had a good laugh at such films as "Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls". It's out of print, but with any luck you can locate it. And if you are any kind of self-respecting film buff, you will do just that!

First off let me just say that because of the endless negative reviews I have been reading for the last couple of weeks I went to see tim Burton's "Planet Of The Apes" with my expectations lowered. So I was naturally very pleased to have my expectations surpassed by this film. I will say this right off the bat, POTA 2001 is inferior to the original, but who really expected it to be better than that one? Anyway, the film gets off to a great start and continues that way for about the first hour. First we get the basic story setup and the introduction of our hero (a perpetually indifferent Mark Wahlberg) but it doesn't take long for the primates (the real stars of the show) to show up and the action to get going. I can't go any further without mentioning Rick Baker's ape makeup-it's absolutely stunning, as are the actors behind the prosthetics. Tim Roth sneers and growls as Thade, the general with a serious chip on his shoulder. I would actually tense up when this guy would walk onto the screen-I think he reminded me of my dad who, like Thade, was always on edge with his temper. To balance that out is the always lovely and charming Helena Bonham Carter as a "human rights activist" (snicker) ape who takes a fancy to Wahlberg's Leo. She is all at once elegant, charming, sympathetic and, inspite of her being a primate, totally sexy! I know the gorgeous Estella Warren makes her film debut here (notice i didn't say "acting debut"-she only says about 5 lines!), but when the 2 were on screen together I would always follow Helena Bonham Carter. Yes I was attracted to an ape. For that Carter deserves an Academy Award. Period. Also on board among others are Michael Clark Duncan as a rather intimidating gorilla and the always reliable Paul Giamatti as a slave trader. Anyway, I am rambling-let me get down to the meat of the review. Other merits of the film include fantastic set design and cinematograpy as well as Danny Elfman's thrilling score. And does it deliver the goods with the action? You bet! So here's where the film falls short: TOO MANY HOLE in the script! Glaring holes in both the story and character development make it hard for the viewer to get involved, and I felt like I was in the dark a few times. It seems that certain backstories would be established but never followed up on. Most perplexing is the ending. Sure enough it was a hell of a good ringer (don't worry I am not giving it away), but WHAT HAPPENED!? I consider myself a literate and introspective person (I followed "Memento" just fine thank you very much) but this ending just left me confused. Every possible answer I come up with is contradictory to the rest of the film, so I don't know. If anybody thinks they have it figured out, please email meI am welcome to any ideas!! Anyway, I think I have said enough-it's fun to look at and listen to, just don't think to hard because you won;t find anything there. Grade: a weak B or a very solid B-

I've been a Woody Allen fan for a decade or so now, becoming one right after this film was released in theaters actually. I never located it on video until recently, so finding it was a nice surprise. I must say, not knowning fully what to expect, I was somewhat taken aback-this isn't the serious "so real it's unreal" drama of earlier works like "Interiors", but a rather affecting and, in my opinion, uncompromisingly realistic look at love and relationships. A summary for those of yo who have not seen the film: After more than a decade of marriage, Jack & Sally (Sydney Pollack & Judy Davis) announce to their best friends Gabe & Judy (Woody & Mia) that they're splitting up. While this comes as an unpleasant surprise to Gabe, it basically turns Judy's entire world upside down, forcing her to question every aspect of her relationship with Gabe, her husband of a decade. What ensues is a somewhat ugly breakdown of relationships with everyone involved as Judy, Gabe, Jack and Sally all begin to discover their true feelings. While Gabe, a college professor, develops a crush on one of his students (played by Juliette Lewis), Judy finds herself falling for coworker Michael (Liam Neeson), who is in turn falling for Sally. All the while Jack has resigned himself to banging a young, spacey aerobics instructor. It's all a complete mess, not unlike real life. The movie does have some a few comedic moments, but even those are steeped in sharp cynicism, brought to life brilliantly by a cast where everybody outdoes themselves. Woody actually abandons his usual nebbish self to give a very thoughtful performance while Mia's passive aggressive Judy really gets under your skin, presumably the way she was meant to. And as you've probably heard, Judy Davis all but steals the show as the obesssive, overly critical Sally. But I must say Sydney Pollack more than holds his own with her, and mention must also be made of Juliette Lewis, who is excellent as usual. "Husbands And Wives" is unlike most of Allen's films because it is neither shallow or overly self-indulgent. The questions posed by the film, regarding love, relationships, honesty, and trust, are all viable. Though the film can be quite entertaining at times, it's not about making you laugh or making you cry so much as it is about making you think. For me, that's the force behind this movie. Many of us have or will find ourselves in these situations like this in real life, and food for thought certainly doesn't hurt. I recommend this film to fans of Allen's work as well as those who enjoy seeing realistic human interaction on the screen.

Being initiated as a Woody Allen fan only in the last 6 years, it's taken me a while to catch up on his seeing all of his films (which I do intend to do). The era between "Hannah & Her Sisters" and "Deconstructing Harry" has always remained the most elusive as it has always been hard trying to find so many of these films on dvd and vhs (I live in a somewhat rural area, so specialty video shops are out of the question). I greeted the new Woody dvd box set with excitement and made it a point to view "Shadows And Fog" first; partly out of excitement at seeing such a wonderful and diverse cast, but equally because this has always been one of the artists most panned productions. As I expected, it's not bad at all. But it's a long way from the glorious neurosis of "Annie Hall" or the surreal wit of "Stardust Memories". Actually, it's somewhere in between. Woody rarely blends an equal amount of form and content in his films, and "Shadows" is defined by the former. Gorgeously shot and giddily atmospheric, it tells the story of absolutely nothing and does it beautifully. The basic premise involves a killer on the loose in a small European town in the 40's with a lynch mob in pursuit and the various characters that fall under the veil of the night and cross each other's paths. The performances are all wonderful with highlight moments provided by Lily Tomlin as a prostitute, John Cusack as a horny intellectual, and Donald Pleasence as the town physician. Woody's his usual nebbish self of course, and Mia Farrow reprises her role frmo "Hannah" as a lovable if not almost gratingly nice character. The production is tasteful and carries a classic feel thanks to the gorgeous b&w cinematography and camera work & the beautiful use of Kurt Weill's music. I must say, I was really only initially disappointed with the climax and ending. It seemed a bit of a copout to what could have led to the resolution of a good murder mystery or, at the very least, some good dramatic revelations. But after doing some considering, I decided the ending was not only gratifying but endearingly sweet. "Shadows & Fog" is classic Woody Allen: a treat to look at it and listen to, and while it's shamelessly self-indulgent, you can't help but like it.

As years have passed, I never had a whole lot of interest in a Silence of the Lambs sequel. Primarily, because I did not think it would happen, and I figured getting my hopes up would have been pointless. I loved the first one and was content with it. Of course, when I knew it was REALLY going to happen and much of the key talent was involved, I was enthusiastic. My heart sank when Jodie Foster dropped out, but I was THRILLED when the ONLY person I would have picked to replace her, the glorious Julianne Moore, was called in to fill her sizeable shoes. I was there opening day, and I didn't avert my eyes from the screen for the duration of the film. The only thing is, I came away feeling a bit puzzled. During a 2 hour period I found myself alternately engaged with suspense, laughing out loud, moved dramatically and even downright confused. Sometimes I experienced all of these feelings simultaniously. I came out feeling a bit confused, because I had just seen a movie that was as brilliantly directed and acted as they come and further elevated by gorgeous photography and a breathtaking music score. And for some reason I felt strangely unfulfilled. Maybe it was the VERY open endedness of the finale, or perhaps it was the overall lack of a cohesive plotline, I do not know. So was it a triumph? Yes and no. It was a bit of a disappointment, but only in the most secondary sense. It FELT like a link, more than decisive chapter. In other words, it felt, in the end, like a predecessor to a third chapter. To be honest, I hope there is one. Not because I am sequel hungry (I shiver at the thought of a "Hannibal Goes To Hell: The Final Silence aka Silence part 10" kind of thing), but I think there needs to be a resolution between Hannibal and Clarice. I almost wish the film had pursued the book's absurd ending-at least there was some closure there. We will see I guess. So all in all, although it doesn't quite live up to it's legendary predecessor, it is safe to say "Hannibal" is a great piece of cinema that will stand as a better film than most of 2001's releases.