Reviews

When I rented this movie, I didn't set myself up for Oscar material. I expected a cute movie with plenty of charm but not an extraordinary amount of brains. Sometimes, a flick like that is just what you're in the mood for.

What I got was in fact two movies: The desired cute one, which suddenly morphed into a brainless, trashy one.

The first half of the movie is enjoyable. Kate Hudson is adorable as a writer who is working on an article about all the things women do wrong in relationships. She is assigned to date a guy, drive him away, then write about it. Her victim is Matthew McConaughey. Unfortunately for her, he has made a bet that he can make her fall in love with him, so try as she may, she can't seem to drive him away.

Hudson's stereotypically-female antics in the first part of the movie are hilarious. She is possessive, whiny, overbearing, and obnoxious. I enjoyed the social commentary here on how women with low self-esteems act around men, then wonder why they get no respect. My favorite part- when they are in a restaurant together, and Hudson's character suddenly starts crying and says embarrassingly loudly, "I can't eat in front of you! You think I'm fat!" I thought to myself, 'I know women like that! I want to strangle them!'

Hudson is definitely adorable. McConaughey doesn't act so much as sit around looking hot in this movie. I would have cast someone else, but his job is to sit and look pretty for the camera, and he does that just fine.

A premise with hilarious potential is set up here. Then, suddenly, the writers drop the ball. The characters, of course, have begun to genuinely fall in love, and the writers don't seem to know how to resolve the plot. So, as seems to be the style these days, they resort to trashy, lowbrow, toilet humor and ruin the whole thing. The main heroes of course find out about each other's real motives, chaos sets in, and the stars somehow end up on stage singing a vulgar version of "You're so vain" to each other. At this point, all humor and intelligence is lost.

My advice: watch and enjoy the first part of the movie. As soon as you see Hudson and McConaughey return from visiting his character's parents' house, turn the movie off, and use your imagination to create your own ending.

Where to begin...(possible spoilers, I guess)

Words cannot properly describe my utter disgust at this movie. It is understandable that some things must be sacrificed to translate a full novel into 1 1/2- 2 hours of script. However, some choices were made here that needn't have been made, and the dark, beautiful, horrifying, gripping, frightening, and satisfying work that was the novel is destroyed.

The Dean Koontz novel raped and pillaged by this film is *terrifying*. I read it as a young adult and had nightmares. I constantly looked over my shoulder as I walked down the street alone. The film was only visually scary. It lacked altogether the gripping terror. We don't get fully into Vassago's head, so why be afraid of him? We never see the depth of the evil created by Koontz. This is a man who truly believes he's been to hell, and back. He believes he is a prince of hell. Who is he in the movie? Some goth-looking teenager who gets off on killing people. I think that's been covered in enough movies already, thank you very much.

Changing the character of Regina was another mortal wound. As other IMDB authors have pointed out, in the novel, Regina is a physically crippled, yet extremely precocious young girl who is *adopted* by Lindsey and Hatch. Her journey to learn to bond with and trust them is touching and essential. They giver her a home, she gives them comfort for the loss of their biological child. It is her deep inner beauty that is supposed to draw Vassago to her and to make him want to sacrifice her to Lucifer. In the film? Regina is a hot blond teenager. How shallow and insulting to us viewers.

Jeff Goldblum is vastly miscast as Hatch Harrison. His bumbling-yet-intellectually-arrogant manner simply doesn't fit here.

Dean Koontz's novel is woven throughout with the threads of good and evil, contrasting and preparing to battle. We are shown why the Harrisons are the "good guys." We are given a window into their hearts and minds. We *like* them. We are endeared to them. As far as I'm concerned, the only reason to root for them in the movie is, well, they're the ones who *aren't* killing people.

The movie lacks this good/evil element throughout...then, suddenly, it magically appears at the end! What began as the fight of Goth Killer Boy vs. Witless Blond and her Stupid Parents instantly and inexplicably transforms into a mighty (and cheesy...) struggle between heaven and hell. But, by then, it's just too late to change the movie into something it's not: deep.

1 out of 10, because with this source material, they should be ashamed of themselves.

"Les Miserables" is one of my favorite stories. It's a beautiful, deep tale of the endless battle between Good and Evil. The novel has been interpreted well on numerous occasions. Several excellent movies were made. And, of course, there's the moving broadway show. Sure, each of these had to cut the very long novel a little and maybe take it's own license. But, in each, one theme remained: Jean Valjean is a *good* man, saved from evil by a kindly bishop, and struggling to remain good in a chaotic world. You're supposed to be touched to the core by Jean Valjean. His struggle and pledge to be good can even cause you to re-examine your own life and values. At the very least, you're supposed to *like* him!

Not so in this terrible movie! Anyone who has any understanding of the "Les Miserable" story will tell you that Jean Valjean is not a violent man. He is a truly gentle soul, who was arrested when he became desperate enough to steal a loaf of bread to feed his hungry sister and her children. Why, WHY did this director portray him as violent??? I was angered off the bat when Valjean struck the bishop. But, I thought perhaps this was a comment on how hard prison life had turned him, so I decided to give the movie a chance. But when he slaps Cosette- that was inexcusable. I'm sorry, but that completely demolished any glimmer of hope left for conveying Victor Hugo's message. Valjean would never hit a woman, much less the girl he adores as his own daughter!

And now, for the ending. So, Javert handcuffs himself, jumps into a river, and drowns. Valjean witnesses this, does nothing to stop it (!), and walks away happy, surrounded by plenty of Hollywood "freedom" allegory. Again, completely out of character! Javert commits suicide *alone* in the novel. Very important. His entire concept of good and evil, the very notion upon which he's based his whole *life* has been torn away, so he puts his police business in order, then simply and quietly kills himself. ALONE. And, Valjean would *never* stand by and watch this! He'd jump in the river and save Javert. This is the same man who risks his life several times for others throughout the story.

After Javert kills himself, the story just ends. Like that. We never find out what becomes of Cosette and Marius. Valjean is free, and we're supposed to be happy with that. But, we're not, because nothing about this movie made us like him in the first place!

The film makers may have *read* all 1,000+ pages of the novel, but it was obvious they didn't truly understand it. Go see the movie with Richard Jordan instead. Even better- see the musical.

I *loved* the original Scary Movie. I'm a huge fan of parody- it is my favorite form of humor. It is sometimes regarded as the most intelligent form of humor. The Wayans boys seemed to grasp that concept perfectly in the original film, then temporarily forgot it when making the sequel. I think the Wayans' are a family of comical geniuses. Alas, even geniuses make mistakes.

The movie begins with promise. I liked "The Exorcist" parody, especially the "come on out, ma" gag. Now, that's Wayans-quality material. But, other than that, I can only think of two other times I laughed: 1) when Tori Spelling is seduced in the middle of the night by a spirit, then becomes clingy and starts talking about marriage with him. Meanwhile, he's saying, "It was just a booty call!!" That was kinda funny. 2) The "Save the Last Dance" parody where the Cindy character inadvertently beats up a girl while practicing her new moves. But even the short-lived giggles are no match for the side-splitting laughs of the first Scary Movie.

The rest of the movie is pure trash, filled with cheap gross-out gags. Jokes from the first movie which were subtle or implied are magnified and overdone. For example, in Scary Movie I, several innuendos are made to imply that the character Ray is gay. This was hilarious. But, in Scary Movie II, the whole penis-strangulation scene with Ray under the bed was mind-numbing and incredibly unfunny. This is the pattern of the whole film. Shock humor *alone* doesn't take a movie very far. This was a trend in 2000 and 2001, unfortunately.

As much as it pains me to rate a Wayans movie so low, I have to give this one a 2 out of 10.

I must be immune to sorcery, because I seem to be one of the few Americans who are not spellbound by Julia Roberts and Richard Gere. I will spend the rest of my life perplexed as to what is so *great* about these two! Yes, they were charming together in "Pretty Woman." There, the chemistry, storyline, and script all just seemed to come together for them. But they have yet to impress me in anything previous or since! They are one-note actors who appear to keep playing the same characters with different names. Richard Gere seems to have trouble changing the expression on his face, and Julia Roberts, well, she giggles and smiles a lot. Wow.

This movie was just another cutesy "chick flick" staring America's favorite pair with a plot so predictable I was bored to tears ten minutes in. Let's see...two high profile actors start out a movie hating each other...gee...do you think maybe they'll fall in love...? Hmmm...

I'll admit, many of my favorite romance comedies do boarder on the predictable, and many do start off with the soon-to-be couple in conflict with each other. But at least the scenes illustrating the hate-to-love progression in those films are interesting, touching, and believable. Nothing in "Runaway Bride" convinced me that Gere and Roberts should be together, or would last forever as a couple. So, what was the point?

I couldn't believe what good reviews this movie received from credible, professional critics! The lowest moment of the film ever was when the man Julia Roberts dumps to hook up with Richard Gere shows up at their wedding and gives Gere the "eye-contact" sign. Sure, recently jilted men always show up to help out at their ex-fiancees' weddings. At this point, I closed my eyes and tried in vain to get in a power nap during the remainder of the movie.

My rating: rock bottom. 1/10.

Warning! Spoilers, right ahead.

In "Titanic," we have a movie that is spectacular, breath-taking, beautiful, stupid and offensive, all at the same time! So, you may ask, how is this possible? Truth be known, I enjoyed this movie immensely when I saw it in the theaters. The production is so awe-inspiring that, upon first viewing, one sets aside the stupidity and unlikelihood of the central love story.

One must admire the workmanship of this film. The set Titanic seemed so real. The costumes were gorgeous. The musical score was sympathetic and lovely. Special attention was given to detail- right down to the hymn sung by the congregation aboard during morning worship. Everything about the movie seemed so authentic- except for the love between the stars.

The opening scenes, which take place in present day time, set up the story beautifully. Gloria Stuart puts her heart and soul into a very convincing 102-year-old Rose. She tells the story of her relationship with Jack Dawson, who she met aboard the Titanic. During this opening sequence, and her interspersed narration throughout the film, she convinces us of a deep, abiding love between her and Jack. But, unfortunately, we are not so convinced during the 1912 shots.

Now, on to what was terribly wrong with this movie. First of all, the plot is brimming with offensive stereotypes about social classes. According to this movie, if you are rich, you are automatically callous, snotty, and, well, pretty much evil. Unless you're new money, then you're safe. But, if you're poor, you are kind-hearted, talented, and oh-so-beautiful on the inside. And, of course, you know how to party. I'm not even rich, and I found this very offensive. What a judgemental statement.

And, at last, we arrive at the love story. Beautiful rich girl Rose is unhappy because she realizes being rich means she'll become like her evil, gossipy mother. Besides, she's engaged to marry another rich person who, of course, is also evil. So, she almost throws herself off the bow of the ship when she is saved by kind hearted poor boy Jack. Miraculously, in a whole 24 hours, the two "fall in love," causing Rose to run away from her rich evil mother and fiance, have sex, and then get parted forever when Jack freezes to death because the evil rich people took all the life boats. Gag.

Because Leo DiCaprio was cast as Jack, we can automatically assume this was at least partially aimed at an adolescent audience. So, what message did the plot send to teenagers? If you're engaged to someone, it's totally okay to cheat on your fiance with someone you've known a whole 24 hours. Even better, it's just fine and dandy to SLEEP WITH someone you just met!

I am having difficulty rating this movie because I loved and hated it at the same time.

Kenneth Branagh took on quite a challenge with this film: How do you top the original movie which, while it hardly captured Mary Shelley's book, was so well made for its time? And, how do you overcome the fact that, for over 60 years, your audience has been ingrained with the image of a bolted-templed, grunting monster as professor Frankenstein's creation, rather than Shelley's patch-work man? Kenneth Branagh's solution is perfect: leave the old classic behind, and instead, follow the book. If only he had followed through until the end, this movie could have been spectacular.

Unfortunately, Branagh took artistic license with the ending, and flawed his masterpiece. But, the rest of the movie was too good to be completely overlooked because of a bad ending. I love Branagh's portrayal of Professor Frankenstein. He is brilliant, passionate, and sometimes visceral. Handsome, in a scruffy sort of way (I never did buy the squeaky-clean, neat Frankenstein). I have always admired the talent of the classically-trained Branagh.

DeNiro stepped out of his typical mobster character to play a Creature (*not* monster) which is the closest portrayal I have seen to Mary Shelley's creation. I was actually impressed with DeNiro's performance because he was able to disguise himself. When I heard he was cast as the Creature, I half-expected the mobster DeNiro to appear. Luckily, he did not. And, yes, you sympathized with the Creature. He was created, then discarded to survive without guidance. An ugly quilt of a man.

I enjoyed the chemistry between Frankenstein and Elizabeth. Their love is very believable. I'm glad they chose to delve into the development of the relationship from adoptive brother and sister to lovers. This movie (until the end) is darkly and beautifully rich in Mary Shelley's writings.

At one point, I say Branagh even improved upon Shelley's work. The character Justine is wrongfully accused of murder. In the book, to prevent further discord, she is forced to falsely admit her guilt and is hanged. Branagh turned this instead into a lynching by an angry mob in the heat of the moment. A much more acceptable scenario, in my opinion.

But, just as the audience is swept away but the brilliance of the film, after Elizabeth is killed, the movie loses its way. As I watched, I remember mentally screaming, "No! No! You were doing so well! Stay with the book!" I was very disappointed with the conclusion of this work of art. That having been said, this is still an intelligent, very well made movie. You'll appreciate it more if you've read the book.

My rating: 7/10, because it was a fabulous movie sans ending.

I first read the Stephen King story about a year before the movie was made. It chilled me to the bone. The story is about a precocious young boy named Todd who, through a little detective work, discovers that an elderly German gentleman in his neighborhood is actually an escaped Nazi, Kurt Dussander, who performed unspeakable acts during the Holocaust. The naive Todd, full of curiosity, threatens to turn Dussander in unless he tells him in detail all about the horrors of his crimes. Todd is too young to comprehend the evil he is unleashing upon himself, and in the next five years, becomes obsessed and consumed by it. His adolescent fantasies and dreams become ones of violence rather than sex, until his desire to kill completely replaces all other desires. He plays society's game, pretending to be interested in school and girls, but in the end, the evil can no longer be hidden and he falls prey to it.

The movie's most fatal flaw is that it doesn't cover nearly the span of time it should. Todd's *development* isn't a part of the movie at all. What made the book so disturbing is how young and naive Todd was at the beginning, and how he grew up with Dussander's evil. I realize this is difficult to do in a movie, but it is possible. In the movie, Todd is pretty much the same age throughout.

The movie also doesn't get into Todd's head. Todd's lack of interest in sex is mentioned as a footnote in the scene in the car with Becky Trask ("Betty Trask" in the book), but it is never developed or explained. The audience is left saying "...huh??" Stephen King emphasized this aspect of the story in his book for a reason- sex is number one in most adolescents' minds, but Todd cares only about evil. Even sex isn't important to him.

The ending was quite different in the movie as well, but I'm not going to call that a flaw because I thought that Stephen King's ending was rather abrupt. I can't really decide which ending I prefer. Neither really completed the story in my opinion.

Psychological thrillers are difficult to portray on screen, I know. But, unfortunately, this disturbing story was turned into just your average horror flick. One highlight, though, was the casting of David Schwimmer as the dorky, sneaker-wearing guidance counselor Ed French. He's exactly how I pictured French when I read the book.

Well, from what I gather from others who have commented, if you haven't read the book, you might like this movie. If you have read the book, you'll be disappointed. Either way, I highly recommend the book.

As a musical theater fan, I've had the pleasure of seeing Evita several times on stage. I've watched the "Queen of Argentina" portrayed by beautiful, talented ladies with powerful soprano voices and engaging stage presences. On each of these occasions, I've left the theater in tears at the end.

I knew that would change when I found out Madonna had been cast to play Evita Peron. Madonna just isn't a dramatic actress, nor is she a broadway-quality vocalist. She is a *pop* singer. I cringed when I noticed that certain notes had been lowered because they were too high for her, while others were raised or spoken because they were too low. And, as she lay dying at the end, for the first time, I wasn't even nearly moved to tears.

Jonathan Pryce (as Juan Peron) and Antonio Banderas (as Che) do their best to charm the audience, but without a strong leading lady, this movie is hopeless. My advice: skip the movie and see it on stage.