JUST MY LUCK is a romance-comedy movie starring media favorite LINDSEY LOHAN as Ashley, an extremely lucky and happy business women. At first, it seems she has all the luck in the world
it's raining, no umbrella, she walks out onto the street and the sun starts shining. Wow, that's sounds great. Unfortunately, this doesn't last and Ashley's luck runs out when she meets and kisses unlucky Band Manager Jake played by CHRIS PINE. Well is it just me or does something always get switched around in every Lindsey Lohan movie. Let's see in Freaky Friday she switched bodies with her mom, in Mean Girls she switched personalities and in this one she switches luck with Jake. Hmmm, I'm no agent but I think Lindsey's in danger of being typecast with these types of movies. Anyways back to the movie, after the switch things instantly go downhill. Like she breaks her high heel, which is a terrible thing to happen to any girl, and she gets arrested. This is probably the best part of the movie. It's funny to watch Ashley struggle with her newfound bad luck and Jake flourish with his new good luck. In fact Ashley's bad luck is an assortment of disasters, one after the other. On the other hand, Jake's new luck brings him many amazing opportunities that he would have only dreamed about previously He has the band he's managing, McFly, signed by a record company. And while he's being offered a great big penthouse, Ashley goes home to find hers flooded and destroyed. Ashley quickly figures out that her luck has been "switched" with the kiss and she seeks out Jake in hopes to regain her luck. The two coincidentally meet and Jakes is happy to show Ashley the ropes in regard to dealing with her misfortune. Finally, the end of the movie, Ashley has to make some sort of a sacrifice, just like in Freaky Friday, until everything can go back to normal. All around the movie has a few moments and the audience gets to hear some of the British band McFly's music.
Reviews
26 Reviews
The Aviator
(2004)
Hughes in his flight for perfection
2 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The Aviator delivers on what it promises: a movie about Howard Hughes and his passion for flying. This movie is based on the illustrious billionaire Hughes and his obsession to better aviation while romancing many of Hollywood's leading ladies. Hughes had a great deal of vision and a great deal of drive and many interesting ideas such as flying above the stratosphere. He also enjoyed injecting large sums of money into his privately funded projects. The sky was the limit for this guy. But the line between genius and insanity become extremely fine for this billionaire. Leonardo DiCaprio boldly portrays Hughes in the movie, from the accent to the eccentricities. Hughes many quirks from his childhood only escalated in his adulthood and brought a halt to his own ideology.
DiCaprio was very convincing in his portrayal of the zealous Howard Hughes and his need to succeed in both Hollywood and Aviation while being consumed by his own mental illness. It seems DiCaprio came up with the goods and delivered a performance worth recognition.
The movie commences with Hughes producing a privately financed movie. It is nice to get to watch Perfectionist Hughes make and remake, edit and re-edit his movie and enjoyable to see it done in a fresh and buzzing Hollywood. During production of a movie he pursues the headstrong Katherine Hepburn (Cate Blanchett), the most prominent actress around at the time, who engages in a stormy relationship with Hughes. A heart stopping moment in the movie is when Howard takes Katherine up in the plane for some flying lessons.
One track minded Howard becomes relentless in pursuit to own an airline that flies internationally. Of course the competition is sour grapes and Hughes is backed into a corner by Juan Tripp, Pan American Airlines (Alec Baldwin) and a Senator's attempts to bully Howard into a corner.
All in all, the movie portrayed Howard Hughes in his flight for perfection; from his ingenious engineering to his relentless vision as a director and ultimately his demise.
DiCaprio was very convincing in his portrayal of the zealous Howard Hughes and his need to succeed in both Hollywood and Aviation while being consumed by his own mental illness. It seems DiCaprio came up with the goods and delivered a performance worth recognition.
The movie commences with Hughes producing a privately financed movie. It is nice to get to watch Perfectionist Hughes make and remake, edit and re-edit his movie and enjoyable to see it done in a fresh and buzzing Hollywood. During production of a movie he pursues the headstrong Katherine Hepburn (Cate Blanchett), the most prominent actress around at the time, who engages in a stormy relationship with Hughes. A heart stopping moment in the movie is when Howard takes Katherine up in the plane for some flying lessons.
One track minded Howard becomes relentless in pursuit to own an airline that flies internationally. Of course the competition is sour grapes and Hughes is backed into a corner by Juan Tripp, Pan American Airlines (Alec Baldwin) and a Senator's attempts to bully Howard into a corner.
All in all, the movie portrayed Howard Hughes in his flight for perfection; from his ingenious engineering to his relentless vision as a director and ultimately his demise.
Star Trek: Nemesis
(2002)
Different, But Good
5 December 2004
Now there has been great debate raging about this particular movie. It's hard to have perspective when there is no measure, so with that said I can say safely without a shadow of doubt in my mind that Star Trek II: Wrath of Kahn is the greatest of the Star Trek Movies ever made, period. There has never been a movie prior or post this movie that has engaged, excited or enthralled a Treker. If you want to know why exactly, read my review on it.
Now during this era of Star Trek movies they never muddled with the plot killer dimension, time, except one, Star Trek IV: Return Home. All of the other movies where, how would 'Q' put it, linear. Honestly, anything that has a plot where someone goes back into time and tries to change it or prevents its change, well lets say, it kills the plot by putting a plot hole the size of a black hole.
I was never a real fan of the time travel as a script concept simply because if it was possible at all, everybody and anybody would eventually try to go back in time and change things to a more favorable outcome for themselves. Basically if you were able to go back in time, wouldn't you pick the winning lottery ticket numbers? So if you can do that why can't I? The next thing you know, you've got a million winning tickets. Star Trek: Nemesis, gets one gold star for having a plot that does not change time on a clock.
In fact it's pretty good. There are flaws and incongruities especially in regards to the Generations episodes and there is no justification for some of the oversights, but the movie shines where it should. A real attempt was made to develop the villains character Shinzon of Remus, Picard's clone. He isn't just a villain, he is a Picard, an alternate version.
So what's new? Picard embodies the perfect Starfleet officer. But take that uniform off and replace it with tattered clothes and remove that individual form his starship and place him in the deep recesses of a sunless world mined by slaves, tortured by Romulans and you get the picture.
What I think people missed in this movie was the big question, are Picard and the clone so different. Shinzon even asks Picard that in the movie. Could Picard have changed or convinced the clone had he had more time? Could the original Picard in a similar situation become evil? Either way, it is the human element and conflict within each of the Picard's and is what will intrigue an audience and is what I especially liked about this movie.
The special effects are good and really enhance a situation not nearly explored enough in Star Trek, the tactics of starship combat. This and only a few other instances has there been such an emphasis on strategy and tactics in starship combat.
Jean-Luc Picard ( Patrick Stewart) and his clone Shinzon of Remus (Tom Hardy) are both at the top of their game and fluently exercise their Shakespearean acting talents. Especially Hardy, who convinces us that he is Picard's clone, and then convinces us he's nothing like Picard. The Enterprise crew is at their best and Stuart Baird's direction gave Nemesis a movie like feeling rather than TV mini-movie feeling.
In closing, who wants to be an ensign when you can be a captain? In the end Trekers have to realize that Star Trek and its stories are about its captain. It is the captain who gets to say those cool lines like: 'Energize', and 'Fire', 'Divert Warp Power' 'Meet me in my ready room' and Picard's trademark lines 'Make it so!'.
A must see for Sci-Fi buffs and open-minded Trekers.
Now during this era of Star Trek movies they never muddled with the plot killer dimension, time, except one, Star Trek IV: Return Home. All of the other movies where, how would 'Q' put it, linear. Honestly, anything that has a plot where someone goes back into time and tries to change it or prevents its change, well lets say, it kills the plot by putting a plot hole the size of a black hole.
I was never a real fan of the time travel as a script concept simply because if it was possible at all, everybody and anybody would eventually try to go back in time and change things to a more favorable outcome for themselves. Basically if you were able to go back in time, wouldn't you pick the winning lottery ticket numbers? So if you can do that why can't I? The next thing you know, you've got a million winning tickets. Star Trek: Nemesis, gets one gold star for having a plot that does not change time on a clock.
In fact it's pretty good. There are flaws and incongruities especially in regards to the Generations episodes and there is no justification for some of the oversights, but the movie shines where it should. A real attempt was made to develop the villains character Shinzon of Remus, Picard's clone. He isn't just a villain, he is a Picard, an alternate version.
So what's new? Picard embodies the perfect Starfleet officer. But take that uniform off and replace it with tattered clothes and remove that individual form his starship and place him in the deep recesses of a sunless world mined by slaves, tortured by Romulans and you get the picture.
What I think people missed in this movie was the big question, are Picard and the clone so different. Shinzon even asks Picard that in the movie. Could Picard have changed or convinced the clone had he had more time? Could the original Picard in a similar situation become evil? Either way, it is the human element and conflict within each of the Picard's and is what will intrigue an audience and is what I especially liked about this movie.
The special effects are good and really enhance a situation not nearly explored enough in Star Trek, the tactics of starship combat. This and only a few other instances has there been such an emphasis on strategy and tactics in starship combat.
Jean-Luc Picard ( Patrick Stewart) and his clone Shinzon of Remus (Tom Hardy) are both at the top of their game and fluently exercise their Shakespearean acting talents. Especially Hardy, who convinces us that he is Picard's clone, and then convinces us he's nothing like Picard. The Enterprise crew is at their best and Stuart Baird's direction gave Nemesis a movie like feeling rather than TV mini-movie feeling.
In closing, who wants to be an ensign when you can be a captain? In the end Trekers have to realize that Star Trek and its stories are about its captain. It is the captain who gets to say those cool lines like: 'Energize', and 'Fire', 'Divert Warp Power' 'Meet me in my ready room' and Picard's trademark lines 'Make it so!'.
A must see for Sci-Fi buffs and open-minded Trekers.
Not Bad, But Not Brilliant
4 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
***Spoilers*** and References to The Goblet of Fire. Were to start, it's hard to pinpoint were the movie went wrong because there was so much great material to work with. The Prisoner of Azkaban had many things going for it post production. A great actor lineup, two previously successful installments and of course high anticipation of its release. Nevertheless, it was hard to watch. The movie started of quite strongly, and then the quality took a nose dive only to recover at the end. Although that means that more than half of the movie was good it still leaves a bitter taste in my mouth since a little editing could have fixed this problem. A lot of people felt that the movie was too dark, well the book was dark. I think the underlying problem was certain parts were just poorly done and other parts were meant to compensate for them. POA starts out quite solid, Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is gutting out another summer with the Dursley's and is provoked by his uncle's sister into using magic. At this time in the movie, I was getting over the initial shock of lack of Christopher Columbus while resisting the new hand held camera techniques applied by Alfonso Cuarón.
The Knight Bus and Leaky Cauldron scenes were difficult to swallow and could have been so much better without the introduction of too many shady characters. Cornelius Fudge who supposedly looses it in the fourth book comes of rather nutty and Mr. and Mrs. Weasley who weren't supposed to ever be out of their robes were kind of strange. The dialogue between Mr. Weasley and Harry amidst the pillars was distracting and felt rushed. By the time we get into the swing of things I was sort of cynical about the new director, Alfonso Cuarón who has already proved himself in The Little Princess.
The attack on The Hogwart's Express and the arrival at Hogwarts were nicely executed and the choir and floating candles added a nice touch. This was probably the best scene in the movie. I felt that the Dumbledore replacement was actually better but were POA missed out and COS didn't was Ron's comic relief which was scarce to none in this movie. Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) actually seemed depressed! Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) was hardly threatening and seemed a tad out of character. Cuarón used the Womping Willow to mark the change of season and definitely gave Hogwarts a more realistic opposed to whimsical look than the first two. Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) started of strong and continued with a solid performance throughout the movie. Good performance by most of the cast and The Dementors were by far the best CGI in the movie and also how I pictured them as described in the book. Not bad but not brilliant.
The Knight Bus and Leaky Cauldron scenes were difficult to swallow and could have been so much better without the introduction of too many shady characters. Cornelius Fudge who supposedly looses it in the fourth book comes of rather nutty and Mr. and Mrs. Weasley who weren't supposed to ever be out of their robes were kind of strange. The dialogue between Mr. Weasley and Harry amidst the pillars was distracting and felt rushed. By the time we get into the swing of things I was sort of cynical about the new director, Alfonso Cuarón who has already proved himself in The Little Princess.
The attack on The Hogwart's Express and the arrival at Hogwarts were nicely executed and the choir and floating candles added a nice touch. This was probably the best scene in the movie. I felt that the Dumbledore replacement was actually better but were POA missed out and COS didn't was Ron's comic relief which was scarce to none in this movie. Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) actually seemed depressed! Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) was hardly threatening and seemed a tad out of character. Cuarón used the Womping Willow to mark the change of season and definitely gave Hogwarts a more realistic opposed to whimsical look than the first two. Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) started of strong and continued with a solid performance throughout the movie. Good performance by most of the cast and The Dementors were by far the best CGI in the movie and also how I pictured them as described in the book. Not bad but not brilliant.
Spider-Man 2
(2004)
A great sequel
11 July 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Spiderman 2 eclipses the first with a super engaging plot and well developed characters. Spoilers ahead. The movie commences with sketches from the first installment up to the point where Peter Parker leaves an emotional M. J. at the goblins funeral; for those who vaguely remember. After all two years have passed since Peter Parker was bitten by the spider but not a lot has changed. Peter is still tight for money, although M.J. has moved up with her career and has her face splashed on billboards. Harry is the only one who has not moved on, still consumed with anger for loosing his father. In spite of loathing Spiderman he has continued his father's legacy OSCORP and funded a new A.I. technology channeled by Otto Octavius, a determined scientist, which goes astray causing him to become controlled by his invention. The underlying premise is Peter Parker's struggle between being the super hero and being Peter Parker as well as admitting his love for M.J without compromising her safety. His uncle's words, `with great power comes great responsibility' are revisited. All in all Spiderman two is a great sequel with lots of action and great Spiderman moments. Tobey Maguire is awesome!
The best movie this year!
10 August 2003
Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl was the best movie of the year. I had to watch this one twice because `I just couldn't resist'. There were so many wonderfully sequenced sword fights and The Black Pearl, a pirate ship, was a terror. Also some other notable ships made the movie interesting, the pride of the royal navy, The Interceptor and The Commodore were beautifully detailed and adorned with the Union Jack. The movie had everything from red coats, blue coats, pirates, ghosts, treasure and was filled with adventure and romance. Johnny Depp delivers a highly entertaining performance as the eccentric Captain Jack Sparrow. Orlando Bloom really shines as lowly blacksmith Will Turner and Kiera Knightly dazzles as the Governor's daughter Elizabeth Swan. All around brilliant cast especially the combination of Depp and Bloom. Can't wait to see the next installment!
Daredevil
(2003)
Cool
7 March 2003
Daredevil has a very intriguing premise which constitutes of a young blind boy who witnesses his fathers death. He is consumed with anger and because his five remaining senses are heightened he can use them to fight evil and serve justice. During the day he is a lawyer and during night he enforces justice where he sees fit. I liked the all around tone and style of the movie, as well as the Jennifer Garner and Ben Affleck combo. Daredevil was a great movie with a great badguy. The soundtrack was awesome and Ben Affleck was superb! Two thumbs up!
Catch Me If You Can
(2002)
caught my attention
2 January 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Catch me if you can definitely caught my attention! The movie unravels quite nicely and definitely has a lot to offer. Leonardo Dicaprio delivers an Oscar worthy performance as Frank Abagnale Jr. The story takes place in the 60's where people were very trusting. Spoilers! Frank Abagnale Jr.'s, world is torn apart because of issues with the IRS. Frank's family car and house are repossessed and he is sent to public school. On his first day he pulls a fast one on the class, pretending to be the teacher and actually gets away with it! However the families finances deteriorate to an unrecoverable state forcing his mother and father to divorce. Loving his mother yet dwelling on every word his father ever spoke Frank chooses to fake it until he makes it, on his own. Frank commences his crime career by attempting to cash fake checks; to no avail. He then resorts to a more fruitful method of changing the check number so it's directed to a branch in another state. By the time the bank realizes the check is counterfeit Abagnale has absconded with the cash. The fed.'s get hold of the fraud and Carl Hanratty played by Tom Hanks is hot on Frank's trail. Bored with fraud, Frank decides to pretend he's a pilot. He also takes on the alias of a Doctor, Lawyer, CIA agent and Teacher. I truly enjoyed all aspects of the movie. The acting, the humor, the conning and the costumes but was left wondering in retrospect, how fraud actually paid off in the end?
PRECIOUS
1 January 2003
I was in a perceptual state of awe throughout the entire movie! The characters definitely come to life in this installment! Frodo Baggins, Elijah Wood, continues on his persistent journey hoping to invariably destroy the nefarious ring, which holds the power to possess and corrupt wherever it dwells. Frodo and his gardener Sam are lead to Mordor by former ringmaster Smeagol, who has a split personality. One side wants to seize the ring and regain possession of it while on the contrary, the other which wants to obey Frodo. Throughout the movie Smeagol intensely converses with himself, that is one personality tries to convince the other to steal the ring. However the fellowship has been severed and while Frodo and Sam are Mordor bound their friends Merry and Pippen are being held by the Uruk-hai. Aragon, Gimli and Legolas, the skillful archer, along with their allies unite to defend all that is good and human. It is a joint effort of elf, ent, dwarf and human. Meanwhile Aragon and Arwen pine away for each other proving their love indelible. LOTR the two towers is precious!
The Chamber of Spiders?
2 December 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Harry Potter 2 was a vast improvement from the first installment from an adult point of view. The characters were far more entertaining and the humor actually funny. Luckily Ron Wesley wasn't the only interesting character this time although he kept up his usually charms. I particularly enjoyed the character development and humor. The premise is the premise and there's no point in commenting on it since I walked in knowing it was about wizardry. Spoilers. Sadly the movie took a bit of a dive when Harry Potter 2 turned into Arachnophobia 2. I was sure John Goodman was gonna show up any second. To my surprise a flying car came to the rescue saved Ron and Harry. John was a no show and Harry saved the day. What can I say, if I was a kid I would be in heaven. A little lengthy but deserves credit for improvement.
The Ring
(2002)
All around a pretty scary if nothing else movie.
30 October 2002
The Ring, not to be mistaken with Lord of the Rings, was definitely a scary movie considering its premise was based on receiving an untimely death within seven days after watching 60 seconds of an unedited homemade video. I honestly walked out of the movie with a hint of cynicism as well as doubt. Although the premise seemed hokey the movie was believable. And even though I received the privilege of watching it on the big screen I'd have to say during certain parts of the movie I was just plain scared so much so I couldn't apprehend what was going on. Fresh faces constituted for most of the acting in the movie. Most notably Naomi Watts who plays Rachael Keller a journalist and mother of Aidan Keller played by David Dorfman who is reminiscent of Haley Joel Osment in the Sixth Sense).
The Bourne Identity
(2002)
some neat action sequences
13 September 2002
Warning: Spoilers
A wounded Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) finds himself on a fish boat with no recollection. Lucky for us he regains all normal functions and proceeds to investigate himself. SPOILERS. He has a pin number tattooed on his arm, which leads him to a bank account; he uses prior self-defense to avoid apprehension. He recruits a troubled lady and offers her a large payment in exchange for a ride to Paris. When they arrive he finds his old apartment but still can't remember anything. Meanwhile the cops are looking for him by request of the government. They avoid apprehension and hideout at friends. Amidst the chaos Matt and the lady fall in love.
Honestly this movie was a little too boring and apparently parallel to Inferno, which was probably a rip off of the original television show The Bourne Identity. The characters failed to involve the audience emotionally. I find the fault in the movie's premise not the acting, which was fine. Matt Damon did a good job with a mediocre script although I have to admit Inferno, though parallel, was a great deal more entertaining. I found myself anticipating the ending despite some neat action sequences.
Honestly this movie was a little too boring and apparently parallel to Inferno, which was probably a rip off of the original television show The Bourne Identity. The characters failed to involve the audience emotionally. I find the fault in the movie's premise not the acting, which was fine. Matt Damon did a good job with a mediocre script although I have to admit Inferno, though parallel, was a great deal more entertaining. I found myself anticipating the ending despite some neat action sequences.
Gosford Park
(2001)
acting compensates for lousy premise
27 August 2002
Warning: Spoilers
The movie's purpose is to reflect the year 1932 which consisted of growing anticipation for movies and actors, a vast gap between the rich and poor, a time where the class system still held a lot of weight, and lastly of course where would we be without drivel gossip.
Sir William McCordle, the master of the house, has a shooting party and invites his family for the occasion. Sir William's cousin Ivor Novello, an actor in his own right, brings along a buddy, Hollywood Producer Mr. Weissman. His entourage consists of Henry Denton played by an accented Ryan Phillipe. The main character is Mary Maceachran, played by Kelly Macdonald, maid to Constance, Countess of Trentham, cousin to Sir William. Spoilers. We soon begin to realize that everybody seems to be reliant on either an inheritance or allowance from the master of the house. When he is abruptly murdered, investigators suspect the affluent upstairs. It soon comes to light that Sir William had relations elsewhere as well, could it be downstairs? It becomes evident that William's fortune failed to draw boundaries where humans were concerned; ironically his own offspring waits on him. Through the movie Mary observes the characters and goes about her business mostly unnerved by her observations until the murderer is revealed. The movie also offers some interesting traditions. The servants sat in an order coordinated to that of their master's rank and were referred to by their master's last name.
The movie had numerous characters and it was occasionally overwhelming to grasp them. The ending was abrupt but the former part of the movie has a lot to offer and was enjoyable. The acting was good and compensated for the lousy premise. Was by no means a comedy.
Sir William McCordle, the master of the house, has a shooting party and invites his family for the occasion. Sir William's cousin Ivor Novello, an actor in his own right, brings along a buddy, Hollywood Producer Mr. Weissman. His entourage consists of Henry Denton played by an accented Ryan Phillipe. The main character is Mary Maceachran, played by Kelly Macdonald, maid to Constance, Countess of Trentham, cousin to Sir William. Spoilers. We soon begin to realize that everybody seems to be reliant on either an inheritance or allowance from the master of the house. When he is abruptly murdered, investigators suspect the affluent upstairs. It soon comes to light that Sir William had relations elsewhere as well, could it be downstairs? It becomes evident that William's fortune failed to draw boundaries where humans were concerned; ironically his own offspring waits on him. Through the movie Mary observes the characters and goes about her business mostly unnerved by her observations until the murderer is revealed. The movie also offers some interesting traditions. The servants sat in an order coordinated to that of their master's rank and were referred to by their master's last name.
The movie had numerous characters and it was occasionally overwhelming to grasp them. The ending was abrupt but the former part of the movie has a lot to offer and was enjoyable. The acting was good and compensated for the lousy premise. Was by no means a comedy.
A Beautiful Mind
(2001)
Good Movie
15 August 2002
Warning: Spoilers
A Beautiful Mind was definitely a different movie. Its pleasant surface is cleverly concealed by a disturbing underlying truth. John Nash, played by Russell Crowe, is a genius who touches the brink of insanity during his personal and professional life. It is evident that his mind is beautiful because his theories are impressive and his thought process, intriguing. Spoilers. My favorite part would have to be when John calculates the odds concerning women and mingling and works out a fruitful scenario that would benefit the whole group. This is an example of how the movie depicts its premise in an impartial way; and I enjoyed this in every respect. I think the movie accomplishes what it set out to do and left me with more than I came with. The ending touched a chord; I enjoyed the movie and believe its Oscar is well deserved.
The Others
(2001)
Spooky
11 August 2002
Warning: Spoilers
The opening scene commences with Nicole Kidman screaming as she awakes from a dream. She lives in a world that is abnormal and hard because her children are severely allergic to daylight and minimum exposure can be deadly. Spoilers. She fights to keep the light out relying on curtains and fire to light the house. Nicole's daughter and son do the best with their unfortunate circumstance and confine from going outdoors. Once one of the children start to see ghosts it is obvious something is out of the ordinary. The Others beautifully succeeds in drawing the audience in and slowly pulling the rug out from under their feet. Kidman delivers her best. 9/10
Stuart Little 2
(2002)
Way to go Stuart!
28 July 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Stuart Little 2 is a simple movie mainly about home and the importance of family togetherness. Michael J. Fox speaks on behalf of Stuart, the mouse adopted by the Little family in the first installment. Spoiler. In this movie Stuart complains of isolation, wishing he could have a friend besides his brother. Well as a matter of fact he didn't know what was waiting around the corner, let me rephrase that, falling from the sky. Yep a friend in waiting. Only that's what Stuart initially thought. What he didn't know was his new friend, a lady bird named Margalo, was sent by her accomplice Falcon who wanted to infiltrate the Little home, and acquire information on their goods and belongings. Only it was evident to Margalo that this was more than a house, it was a home.
After reluctantly embezzling Mrs. Little's precious wedding ring, Stuart endangers himself trying to find it in the sink. Margalo soon realizes she is doing damage to this prim and perfect family and decides to quietly depart. Stuart feels Margalo may have been kidnapped and engages in a full-fledged bird hunt along with the self-serving household Cat, Snowball.
I definitely enjoyed this movie, it was humorous, harmless, preached family togetherness. I also enjoyed the music from the Soundtrack. Way to go Stuart!
After reluctantly embezzling Mrs. Little's precious wedding ring, Stuart endangers himself trying to find it in the sink. Margalo soon realizes she is doing damage to this prim and perfect family and decides to quietly depart. Stuart feels Margalo may have been kidnapped and engages in a full-fledged bird hunt along with the self-serving household Cat, Snowball.
I definitely enjoyed this movie, it was humorous, harmless, preached family togetherness. I also enjoyed the music from the Soundtrack. Way to go Stuart!
Domestic Disturbance
(2001)
John Travolta is awesome!
25 July 2002
Warning: Spoilers
John Travolta plays Frank Morrison, a divorced father who shares custody with his ex-wife Susan who's begun a new life with an affluent man, Rick Barnes. Spoilers. Her son Danny is disconcerted that his mother is participating in a new marriage and refuses to attend, until he is persuaded by his own father Frank. During the wedding ceremony Frank notices an unfamiliar man, Ray Colman, played by the eccentric Steve Buscemi. Frank soon suspects that Ray may know something about Rick Barnes, something incriminating.
When Danny witnesses his stepfather murdering Ray, he immediately calls the police and informs his father of it. The evidence however is vague and brushed off mostly because young Danny has a tendency of lying. Frank decides he cannot let it go because his son never lies to him and suspiciously Ray has disappeared. Meanwhile Rick tortures Danny behind Susan's back and threatens to kill his father if he does not behave while Frank continues on a relentless hunt to prove his son's allegations are true.
All around an excellent family thriller. John Travolta delivers an outstanding performance as the concerned and devoted father although Steve Buscemi may momentarily steal the spotlight. 10/10.
When Danny witnesses his stepfather murdering Ray, he immediately calls the police and informs his father of it. The evidence however is vague and brushed off mostly because young Danny has a tendency of lying. Frank decides he cannot let it go because his son never lies to him and suspiciously Ray has disappeared. Meanwhile Rick tortures Danny behind Susan's back and threatens to kill his father if he does not behave while Frank continues on a relentless hunt to prove his son's allegations are true.
All around an excellent family thriller. John Travolta delivers an outstanding performance as the concerned and devoted father although Steve Buscemi may momentarily steal the spotlight. 10/10.
You Can Count on Me
(2000)
Lasting Effect
16 July 2002
Warning: Spoilers
You Can Count on Me, is definitely an effective movie and fulfills its purpose beautifully. Spoilers. It portrays the trials and tribulations of two orphaned siblings, and the consequences of their adulthood, growing up with an inconstant childhood. The movie is set in a slow paced small town where Sammy, a single mother tries to raise her rule-abiding child, Rudy. The movie's main plot is the appearance of her unruly and misguided brother Jessie whose character is by far the most intriguing in awhile.
Jessie genuinely wants to find some peace, but has to overcome a great amount of inner turmoil and cynicism. He sees himself in his oblivious nephew Rudy, played by Rory Culkin and feels it is his responsibility to introduce his nephew to the real world, opposed to the sheltered one his mother insists on. On one hand teaching him how to hammer a nail correctly and the other, taking him to see his estranged father. In actuality Jessie's negative influence has the opposing effect on his nephew, who desperately seeks the company and influence of a male.
Sammy maintains a squeaky-clean image as a mother, but her love life is lacking. She initiates an affair with her married boss, Brian, played by Matthew Broaderick, in order to avoid any real relationships.
Sammy ends the affair and eventually asks her brother to leave, unless he stops behaving destructively. Jessie finds it hard to change but easier to be offended and decides he no longer has a place at home. After a sad goodbye he heads off, uncertain of the future. Both the screenplay and acting were brutally realistic and have a lasting effect.
Jessie genuinely wants to find some peace, but has to overcome a great amount of inner turmoil and cynicism. He sees himself in his oblivious nephew Rudy, played by Rory Culkin and feels it is his responsibility to introduce his nephew to the real world, opposed to the sheltered one his mother insists on. On one hand teaching him how to hammer a nail correctly and the other, taking him to see his estranged father. In actuality Jessie's negative influence has the opposing effect on his nephew, who desperately seeks the company and influence of a male.
Sammy maintains a squeaky-clean image as a mother, but her love life is lacking. She initiates an affair with her married boss, Brian, played by Matthew Broaderick, in order to avoid any real relationships.
Sammy ends the affair and eventually asks her brother to leave, unless he stops behaving destructively. Jessie finds it hard to change but easier to be offended and decides he no longer has a place at home. After a sad goodbye he heads off, uncertain of the future. Both the screenplay and acting were brutally realistic and have a lasting effect.
Behind Enemy Lines
(2001)
Action & Originality
15 July 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Behind Enemy Lines commences with an excellent opening. Humor. Owen Wilson's character Chris Burnett complains of boredom and ultimately hopes to leave behind his post as a navigator. Spoilers. Gene Hackman, Admiral Leslie Reigart, is furious when Burnett tells him and responds to Burnett's letter, if we were at war, you wouldn't last long. The navigator thinks nothing of it and is dismissed.
Gene Hackman decides to send Burnett along with pilot Stackhouse on a routine flight over Bosnia which soon turns into a worst case scenario: they get shot. The movie then becomes a fight for survival in a foreign land. Burnett is instructed by admiral Reigart to evade and survive.
Burnett dodges bullets, leaps over landmines, crawls through mud and single handedly evades death in a foreign warzone, inadvertently proving his Admiral wrong. Also there was some very cool satellite usage worth mentioning. I give this movie a 10/10 for action and originality. Very entertaining.
Gene Hackman decides to send Burnett along with pilot Stackhouse on a routine flight over Bosnia which soon turns into a worst case scenario: they get shot. The movie then becomes a fight for survival in a foreign land. Burnett is instructed by admiral Reigart to evade and survive.
Burnett dodges bullets, leaps over landmines, crawls through mud and single handedly evades death in a foreign warzone, inadvertently proving his Admiral wrong. Also there was some very cool satellite usage worth mentioning. I give this movie a 10/10 for action and originality. Very entertaining.
Serendipity
(2001)
Disappointing
14 July 2002
After watching Serendipity and comparing it to a few other movies, I'll have to say it was absurd. Firstly, I find it hard to believe that either of these characters loved each other. In the former part of the movie Kate and John, let's call them by their real names since their characters are both airheads, decide to let fate bring them back to each other. Well in all honesty one should be smart enough to know, if one believes in fate, that it is fate that initially brought them together in the first place. So why the whole goose chase? Why didn't Jonathan ask Sara out then and there? Probably because he was too chicken. I think this movie's whole purpose was to contradict the popular saying `opportunity only knocks once.' Those proverbs came from vast research and are not to be questioned. Pardon my candor but comedy was the only glue that held this movie together. 5/10
Vanilla Sky
(2001)
Interesting
12 July 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Vanilla Sky commences with a disconcerting opening. Spoilers. Tom Cruise running through Times Square and not a soul to be seen. Thankfully it's just a scary dream of no significance, at least that's the opinion of his shrink.
We then go on to see that David Aames (Tom Cruise) is the son of a highly respected businessman whose biography is a best seller. Only he is no longer alive and David is a 51% shareholder in his previously overseen company. The remaining percentage is distributed evenly among 7 board members, whom David refers to as the seven dwarfs. His personal life is somewhat a mess. He's attracted to his best friend's love interest while stringing along another eccentric woman Julie Gianni played by Cameron Diaz. After a romantic date with Sofia Serrano played by Penelope Cruz, he is confronted by Julie Gianni (Cameron Diaz) `What about promises' She protests as she drives of a bridge committing suicide and leaving David comatose. David eventually wakes up from the comma with extensive face and nerve damage and assumes his daily roles with grace.
At this point the movie begins to portray Tom's subconscious, because in actuality he is dead and in a life extension trance. He conveys his hopes, dreams, desires and fears in this state for the latter part of the movie, using prior knowledge from life and stereotypes. Although this movie is very intricate, it's smart because it held my attention and portrayed the many truths of life. While the movie is unique it's also similar to Brain Scan, The Matrix and Total Recall.
Kurt Russell is extraordinary in his portrayal of an ordinary psychiatrist, who desperately wants to believe his client. Both Tom and Kurt acted beautifully and complimented each other. Cameron Diaz was frightfully convincing as the eccentric stalker and Penelope Cruz was sweet as aspired girlfriend. My overall assessment: 9/10.
We then go on to see that David Aames (Tom Cruise) is the son of a highly respected businessman whose biography is a best seller. Only he is no longer alive and David is a 51% shareholder in his previously overseen company. The remaining percentage is distributed evenly among 7 board members, whom David refers to as the seven dwarfs. His personal life is somewhat a mess. He's attracted to his best friend's love interest while stringing along another eccentric woman Julie Gianni played by Cameron Diaz. After a romantic date with Sofia Serrano played by Penelope Cruz, he is confronted by Julie Gianni (Cameron Diaz) `What about promises' She protests as she drives of a bridge committing suicide and leaving David comatose. David eventually wakes up from the comma with extensive face and nerve damage and assumes his daily roles with grace.
At this point the movie begins to portray Tom's subconscious, because in actuality he is dead and in a life extension trance. He conveys his hopes, dreams, desires and fears in this state for the latter part of the movie, using prior knowledge from life and stereotypes. Although this movie is very intricate, it's smart because it held my attention and portrayed the many truths of life. While the movie is unique it's also similar to Brain Scan, The Matrix and Total Recall.
Kurt Russell is extraordinary in his portrayal of an ordinary psychiatrist, who desperately wants to believe his client. Both Tom and Kurt acted beautifully and complimented each other. Cameron Diaz was frightfully convincing as the eccentric stalker and Penelope Cruz was sweet as aspired girlfriend. My overall assessment: 9/10.
Scooby-Doo
(2002)
Boring
5 July 2002
I never really watched Scooby Doo the Cartoon, so I went to see the movie with no prior knowledge. I knew who Scooby Doo was, but that was it. Anyway after seeing Lilo and Stitch I really didn't find Scooby Doo very entertaining in comparison. The person next to me fell asleep, then woke up and then fell asleep again. The only interesting parts were when Scooby's master Shag (I think that's his name) fell in love and Scooby laughed at him, and when Buffy beat someone up. The movie kind of dragged on and inevitably ended, thankfully. Overall I gave it 3/10.
Spider-Man
(2002)
Cool Gimmicks
5 July 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Spiderman was a great ride. I enjoyed the action and Spiderman's gimmicks. But it had no other appeal to me. The characters were, how do I put it gently, boring. The character plot was also boring. I'm meaner than the green goblin.(might be a spoilers) I found myself replaying the wrestling scene between Macho Man Randy Savage and Peter Parker in my head, while the boring plot continued. Honestly, I loved the parts were Spiderman was swinging through the city, and don't get me wrong the effects were great. It's just by the end of the movie I loved Spiderman and hated Peter Parker. This movie did conjure up emotions in me. Mostly negative feelings for Peter Parker who lead Mary Jane on through the whole movie. Superhero movie's are supposed to have happy endings, not stupid ones. Overall 7/10.
Lilo & Stitch
(2002)
Good Movie
4 July 2002
The only reason I went to see Lilo and Stich was because I heard Blue Suede Shoes in the trailer.Anyway, I can honestly say, I was pleasantly surprised. One again Disney delivers a wonderful animated movie. It's not as good as The Little Mermaid but I would rank it in the top five. I enjoyed the fact that Disney was portraying an imperfect family in any imperfect world. Nowadays it not out of the ordinary for kids to come from broken homes. I think it was a nice touch portraying to kids the importance of family without centralizing on picture perfect families. I think Disney has done a wonderful job adjusting to the times, I have to admit I found stitch so hilarious that I was laughing most of the time. Stitch is a one of a kind, and it will be awhile till he is forgotten.
Black and Blue
(1999 TV Movie)
Great Movie
27 June 2002
Black and Blue was a realistic and well executed movie. The actors all portrayed their characters beautifully. The movie depicted both Robert's perspective as well as his mother's truthfully. I could feel Robert's inner conflict, loving his father yet on the other hand despising him for beating his mother. Wanting to protect his mother from his father, yet not wanting to leave the comforts of home. Although this movie is realistic, I think Frannie was lucky to meet so many nice people in Florida, while under the witness protection. I enjoyed this movie because it depicted real life and Frannie was able to surmount her obstacles. The only part that was unclear was what happened to Robert, and why it took him so long to realize that his father wasn't perfect.
Tell Your Friends