Reviews

Finally... FINALLY, a STAR TREK film is made that fulfills EXACTLY what fans and critics of the franchise alike have been clamoring for ages to happen: a big screen adventure that without a doubt must be seen on the big screen. And what happens?! It gets panned, that's what!!!

First off, Paramount should have released it at least a week earlier. It would have had a chance that way to earn some decent money. By putting it out just five days before THE TWO TOWERS, they basically wasted their $40 million marketing campaign.

Second... I've heard many criticisms that the TNG films have been little more than elaborate, big budget TV movies. Oye. OK, guys, listen. STAR TREK started out on TV. That's where it evolved from. The movies, as much money and talent as they're able to spend, still must exist in the same UNIVERSE. That means that, yes, in a Star Trek MOVIE, you need to still have the frickin' ENTERPRISE. There still must be a BRIDGE. We still need to have PICARD and friends. And you can't not have a warp core, no matter how much you want to make people think this in no way reminds you of the TV series.

The deal is this: NEMESIS looks absolutely terrific. The effects are far and away the best to date in a Trek film (and superior to most other films showcasing CGI of late). There are some terrific action set pieces, and the interplay is everything you'd come to expect- and more- from the TNG cast.

There's an overwhelming criticism that the film is "underlit." Obviously these thick skulls don't appreciate or at least recognize the fact that the filmmakers are paying heavy (and effective) homage to classic European horror films. I guess the NOSFERATU reference with the Remans wasn't enough to spark that memory, but then again, many of these critics probably don't know what NOSFERATU is.

NEMESIS has the unique distinction of becoming the lowest-grossing TREK movie ever (which without a doubt means the end of the series) but also being amongst the best of all ten films. It may not have the narrative pull that made FIRST CONTACT and WRATH OF KHAN the best Trek movies ever, but it's close, and I'm happy to say that in spite of a Trekked-out majority vote, it pleased me just fine to see Picard and co. make it so just one last time.

The Next Generation has gone out with a BANG. I heard it. I guess everyone who built up the negative buzz needs to get their hearing checked.

THE MOTION PICTURE: *1/2

THE WRATH OF KHAN: ****

THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK: **1/2

THE VOYAGE HOME: ***

THE FINAL FRONTIER: **

THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY: ***

GENERATIONS: **1/2

FIRST CONTACT: ****

INSURRECTION: **

NEMESIS: ***1/2

This is the worst film I have seen in a very, very long time. Perhaps EVER. As an independent filmmaker (currently at work on my first major feature length movie, CONQUEST OF AREA 52), I know how hard it is to make movies with little to spend. But I was making better movies as a Sophomore in high school with $50 in my wallet as a budget than this pathetic excuse for a "movie." I'm not sure if I have ever seen a movie shot this poorly or with such little ambition, creativity, or craft. It looks like it was shot on Hi-8 Video (I shoot in DV and would be shocked if this was actually DV), and to no good effect. The "props" and "mask" in the film look very familiar... like I just saw them at my local Spencer's. The script lacks wit, and the performances do nothing to help it. And did I mention this has got to be the WORST camerawork I have ever seen (with the exception of BLAIR WITCH, which was SUPPOSED to look the way it did, and my family's home movies)?! There is no sense of logic or craft to how it was shot, whoever was at the helm must have been asleep at the wheel or he really just did not care what it looked like. There is no indication in this film that the cameraman had any idea what words like "framing" or "composition" meant.

The fact that our serial killer Quiltface is able to stand 20 feet from several people in the middle of the open desert and not be seen does NOT work in any fashion- camp nor horror- and best explains the rest of the movie.

I'm sorry, makers of "Carnage Road" (or "Carnage: The Legend of Quiltface" as the video cover says), but if you ever go out and try to make a movie again, please, PLLLEEEEASE do it with a little care, if not TALENT.

At least Ed Wood could have made this fun to watch.

I have not yet read the book "The Hobbit," but considering the fact that I'm about to see "Fellowship of the Ring" on the big screen without having any prior knowledge of the Tolkien universe, I figured renting it may be a good place to be introduced (somewhat) to the mythos. Oops.

What a horrendous production this was. The songs, the songs that begin and end in approximately one sentence after often-times meaningless points, the choppy animation, the score itself... ugh. Perhaps the worst part of the whole thing was toward the end, when the music plays so loudly that in fact it drowns out all the dialogue. I don't know if this was a result of the video transfer people falling asleep at the wheel while mixing sound, but it just made the movie that much worse. Thankfully, I believe Tolkien was deceased before it was broadcast, so at least he didn't have to bare it.

Good points? Um... well, the underlying story seemed to have promise. The execution was a miserable failure. And what's with the high rating of 6.5 on the imdb? Are there really fans out there of this torrid musical?!

If you like bad animation, songs that interrupt with the flow of a film worse than any recent Disney film, and music that plays so loud you can't hear people talk, this "Hobbit" is the movie for you.

Going into "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," I did not share the current hype surrounding it. Two reasons: one, I did not read the book, and two, I was a little concerned about the man in charge of bringing the bestseller to the screen. Granted, director Chris Columbus knows how to work with kids, as evidenced in his megapopular "Home Alone", "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York," and "Mrs. Doubtfire." I've enjoyed most of his work, even "Bicentennial Man," which many did not. Of course, I hated "Home Alone 2," as I felt it covered familiar territory in rather uninteresting ways. And even though I found his other films to be entertaining at least on a basic level, I also recognized how superficial his work is. Columbus lays on the sap and sentiments in ways that Hollywood loves and film historians loathe (see "Stepmom").

Now he's brought "Harry Potter" to the screen. I enjoyed it. And a bit more than his other works. Does this mean Columbus magically transformed into a different director, overnight, a la Spielberg's shift from "Jurassic Park" to "Schindler's List?" Not really. Thankfully however he also didn't play an act, like say, Michael Bay did with "Pearl Harbor" (Bay: "Oooh look at me I'm making a serious film now... maybe this film has even more sentiment than ever before, but look at those explosions! Feel the power of my godlike filmmaking!"). It seems Columbus knew where his true abilities lie, and with "Harry Potter," he's managed to stray away from forcing emotions. In fact if anything there's not enough emotional punch going for "Potter," which is far better than what I was expecting.

Having not read the book, I came into this over-hyped picture having little idea what I would see, and perhaps give a more unbiased approach. As a film, the atmosphere is entrancing. It's dark, it's fun, and oh boy is it long. I don't share the sentiment of many of my friends that "Potter" races by. A good half hour could have been cut and I wouldn't have really known the difference. I got by through "Titanic" and "Gladiator" without growing antsy. A film should be as long as the filmmaker needs it to tell the story (Terrence Malick should take a hint) and that is all.

The acting is pretty decent; young Radcliffe makes his presence known as the young Potter. We can expect "great things" from him in the future. If I have any one big quarrel with the script, and I apologize to ye loyal Potter fans out there, it is that he doesn't have enough lines. I felt his friends had a tad too much to say. The film finally finds its real power when Harry is on his own, such as the scene with the mirror, or the finale.

The effects are suitable, not terrific, for the picture. I didn't find the CG matte paintings fancy enough for any Oscar nods, but it works. The production design is (as expected) terrific, and the cinematography is just involving enough to... keep you involved. The upcoming "Fellowship of the Ring" has much more of a fantasy-feel to it, which is fitting, and I'm glad that Columbus and co. did not go to great lengths to remove this film from reality.

All in all, "Harry Potter" is an entertaining film. It doesn't have a hold on me like many others, but I can see how it may be remembered by contemporary audiences as this generation's "Wizard of Oz." When "Titanic" came out, it was hailed as our generation's "Gone With the Wind," and I agreed (much to the harsh disagreements of most people I know; ironic that it's much "cooler" now to hate "Titanic" than like it). I guess we'll see in the next twenty years. By then, all seven books will have been filmed, Mr. Radcliffe will be starring opposite Anna Paquin in "The Piano Returns," and we will see if the hype is carrying "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" back to the big screen. 8/10.

The only reason there is a question mark in parenthesis is NOT because I haven't seen every film released in 2001 thus far. It's because this film was only made PARTLY in 2001. The rest of it was stolen from Roger Corman's OTHER dinosaur films, Carnosaur 1-3.

I have a confession to make. "Carnosaur 2" is perhaps one of my favorite B-movies. It borrows so much from James Cameron's "Aliens" it's not even funny. But I love it. I can't explain exactly why. It just WORKS for me. I liked the sets, I liked the cinematography, I liked how they borrowed from "Aliens". It's all a bit ironic that Cameron at one point was an understudy of Corman's, with films like "Battle Beyond the Stars" (1980).

I own the Carnosaur trilogy on DVD, and the most I can say for part one is that it has moments. The most I can say for the third is that it took me five years to find it watchable.

Now we have "Raptor," which does NOT continue that series. Instead, it borrows ENTIRE scenes from the Carnosaur Trilogy and BUILDS a movie around it. And somehow Roger Corman was able to get Eric Roberts and Corbin Bernsen to do it. Now, I'm not saying either Roberts or Bernsen are at any kind of career high. But they were both at one point what could be called RESPECTABLE actors. Not here. Sure, actors react to effects they won't even see while filming all the time. Here, however, they are reacting to mismatched footage from films that are between five and eight years old. There's even a sherrif whose costume was modeled directly after a character in "Carnosaur 1." Apparently it made too much sense to get the original guy back.

When "Raptor" was announced I was a wee bit excited. I was however disappointed when Corman said that they'd be using the old dinosaur models from "Carnosaur." Apparently Corman decided after this interview was conducted that he wouldn't even do that. And its not that he couldn't find an FX crew to do it. The script for this was clearly written keeping in mind that the story had to be built around pre-existing stock footage.

Don't compare this to Ed Wood. Ed did better than this. At least he only used the stock footage of Bela once, in one film. There are ways of incorporating stock footage into a movie, and "Raptor" takes this frowned-upon technique to a new low. Even if you liked "Carnosaur 3: Primal Species," stay away from "Raptor."

I've been a fan of George Romero's Dead films for over 13 years now. Night of the Living Dead is an influential & effective film and that's all; the film would only be truly scary to me if it were re-scored by a talented contemporary composer (the same thing could save Chuck Heston's The Omega Man, another film which loses most of its potential due to the music).

Dawn of the Dead on the other hand is such a strong film due to its characters, the treatment of the story, the social themes, and the FX that its saved by a dated soundtrack. It's one of my top ten favorite films.

Day of the Dead is superior with its makeup not only to its two predecessors but perhaps every other zombie film ever made. The characters are pathetic except for the radio guy and the pilot, and the tone is too dank to care much about what happens, but it still works based on the simple fact that the world is totally overtaken by zombies. I, along with thousands of other fans, would love to see Romero come back and do a Dead film for the new millennium.

Its a prime time to do one.

And "Children of the Living Dead" is NOT it. Romero had nothing to do with it; instead, John Russo, a producer for "Night," and his cohorts who butchered it with a 30th anniversary special edition a few years back, delivered this piece of dung that will (hopefully) be quickly forgotten as being any part of the Dead mythos. Its barely worth writing about, except for the hope that other Dead fans will read this and I may spare them the anguish. To realize that goal, I won't even begin to talk about the plot. It's horrendous. And so is this attempt at a production.

I'm an indie filmmaker and these guys make practically every mistake in the book. While I can believe that Tom Savini would do this, I can also imagine what he must have been thinking WHILE doing it. Poor Tom.

Basically this is some kind of sequel to "Night" but a prequel to "Dawn", except it's set in modern times, not like say 1974 or something, and it ends in no way that could set up the events for "Dawn." Sounds like Ed Wood territory? Well, it is, except Ed would have made it better and a lot more enjoyable. There's even a fake graveyard and a really horrible subplot with it. How long does it take that crew of workers to clear a graveyard of what, twenty graves at most? Basically it's as if they... I can't even begin to rationalize it.

Someone wants to go out and do yet another Halloween or Nightmare, fine. Its not like the legacy of Halloween or Nightmare is built on their sequels. The Dead series is very different. It's Holy Ground for horror film freaks.

Russo, you wanna milk this cow, fine. Do it. Just keep in mind that the better your film actually is, the more money it'll likely make.

Oh heck with it. I can't offer a better explanation. He really WAS only thinking with his wallet. When he goes to the grocery store next week and realizes he has no milk money, maybe he'll remember there's a reason these films do WELL: they were also GOOD.

I first became a fan of the "Planet of the Apes" saga when I was 12 years old. HBO was showing the original film and I came in on the scene in which Charlton Heston's Taylor was being interrogated in the apes' court. I was hooked from that moment on. I bought all five original films and watched all of them countless times and re-bought them when Fox put out the THX-Widescreen tapeset for the 30th anniversary. What did Apes do for me? Well, to begin with, it made me examine my religion. The end result? I determined I wasn't Christian. It also made me want to be a film director even more. THIS WAS WHAT SCI-FI COULD DO. Even the weakest entry of all, "Battle for the Planet of the Apes," was above standard sci-fi entertainment.

So here I am, 22 years old, exploring religion, life, and directing my first ambitious independent film, which is even titled as a small homage to the fourth "Apes" film, "Conquest of Area 52" (there will be an IMDB entry on it next year sometime). "Planet of the Apes" is among my biggest reasons for wanting to make films and it's impacted the way I think as well.

I've read the wonderful Pierre Boulle novel (and own the first printing, which I um, borrowed from my high school library) and I will be buying the "Apes" TV series on DVD. And of course, I saw Tim Burton's "reimagining" of "Planet" on opening day.

From the beginning, I'm already biased. The original Apes saga was my Bible. To paraphrase, "Everything I Needed to Know I Learned From Apes." Heh-heh. Tim Burton... love the guy. He made "Ed Wood," one of my top ten favorite films. His unique visions and styles have always intrigued me. Admittedly however, Burton normally did not have strong points in plot or character development. His "Batman" films were a mixed bag, not showing enough of the psychology of what it meant to be Batman, but they were so visually entrancing that I am still able to watch them on their own merits. In fact, both "Batman" and "Batman Returns" get an 8.5/10 from me. "Mars Attacks" is a joy to watch on the right day, and the same goes with "Edward Scissorhands" and "Beetlejuice." By the time he directed "Sleepy Hollow," I felt that Burton had evolved so much as a visual storyteller that he really could not be judged for weak plot or character. That's the way he wants to be as an artist, so let it be.

But...

This time, he's done "Planet of the Apes." If it were anything else, like say a remake of "2001", I could still watch it and not crucify it. No, this new version is not anything worth crucifying. "Apes 2001", shall we call it, has the all the Burton standards- plot and character on the back burner, awesome visuals at the forefront. What sets Burton aside from say, the biggest hack of all time Michael "Pearl Harbor" Bay, is that while his character drama may not be the most engaging, it's not exactly boring or annoying. It's just SIMPLE. This version plays out like the 1968 version except cut down to the core: an astronaut crashlands on a strange planet, he gets caught, is imprisoned at Ape City, gets away with the help of a lovable chimp, goes into the Forbidden Area, finds out the origin of the apes, and leaves the apes to go home. That last part is the only thing really different in the overall structure, except this time, the film does not end there, and we get an ending which both pays its respects to Boulle's original novel and Franklin Schaffner's original film.

There are several references this version makes to the original series. With the Apes army we get a nod to "Beneath." With the love story, er, triangle, there's a similar feel to Zira and Cornelius' plight in "Escape." The look of the astronaut costumes is very similar to those in the first two. And the origin of the apes rings in similar tone to the fourth film, "Conquest."

Did I like it? I've only seen it twice, so its a bit hard to say that without going, "except for this... and that... and this... and that..." What I liked: the cinematography, the sets (which are never all that real-looking but invoke memories of illustrated children's books, which is a Burton constant), the movement and makeup of the apes (maybe the two most noteworthy things done here), the cameos by Chuck Heston and Linda Harrison (Nova from Apes I & II). I also liked the love triangle between Ari, Leo, and the blonde; this was very humorous. Wahlberg didn't add much depth to a written character already lacking depth, but he certainly had the right expressions for his character. I wouldn't be particularly overjoyed by my stay on the Planet of the Apes either. Helena Bonham-Carter is always good in whatever she does, and her character in this was endearing enough to accept her makeup, which differs greatly from the others. Paul Giamatti's Limbo may be the best character of all, providing the most comic relief. Tim Roth as Thade is brilliant, as are the rest of the key players. I didn't appreciate that the social commentaries were sometimes rather clumsily slapped on; indeed a lot of the time they seemed like desperate attempts by Burton to put SOMETHING in there saying ANYTHING when the script had little to give him (Burton arrived on the project fairly late and had little time to shape the film).

Overall, this 2001 version of "Planet" is far better than it should have been, given the success it had to live up to. It doesn't hold a candle to the original, and I certainly never expected it to. I'm glad Fox put a commercial artist in charge of it, rather than a commercial hack such as the afore-mentioned Michael Bay or Tony Scott. It may have been more intriguing had Oliver Stone worked on it (Stone was attached several years back).

Tim Burton did the near-impossible for me: I didn't want to kill him after watching this. And for an Apes fanatic such as myself, that is saying a heck of a lot. Let's all hope that when Fox greenlights the sequel, they don't hand it over to Joel Schumacher. I'd take Ed Wood's Planet of the Apes over his anyday.

I do have one quibble I think is more than worthy of consideration to even a non-Apes fan not familiar with the original series:

We know where the Apes come from in "Apes 2001." But why the heck would that space station have HORSES on it?! Sorry, I'm not gonna take the old lame scientific explanation about how life on other planets must be similar. I may be a Darwin enthusiast, but come on. That's stretching it.

Given the drivel of the summer of 2001, we finally have a film that REALIZES its an elaborate B-movie and does not pretend it's more than that. Not as smart as the first, but a heck of a lot more fun than The Lost World, it's more than worth the price of admission. Great effects, decent acting, simple plot... yeah it's starting to feel like the 50's matinee again.

Jeez, it ain't THAT bad! 3.8? Maybe the original, MAYBE, but this is a substantial improvement over that, and the original has like a 4+ rating. I don't really give this a 10, I give it more like a 7.5, but I gave it a 10 because I found the ratings to be well, WAY OFF. This one had decent performances, really excellent art direction, and some really cool FX. I especially liked the Bronto-bridge and the Great Gazzoo. Unlike the first Flintstones, this prequel is smart, fun, and the actors truly become the characters they play. The story? LAME. The first 60% or so of the film DOES CLICK. But the rest, when they arrive in Rock Vegas, is pure dreck appealing to the lowest common denominator. But the film is so fun to look at, you really don't care. There are a lot of films to love to hate but this one really is NOT it. It's an adult Flintstones, if you can imagine that, and it's a small but cute treasure to behold.

I wrote an earlier comment on "Scream 3," and was rather harsh on the film without having seen it- simply based on the fact that the story was not written by "Scream" creator Kevin Williamson. So, I was surprised more than anyone how much I enjoyed "Scream 3," the third and final chapter in the "Scream Trilogy." Indeed, I loved the first two and was always in anticipation of the third, but the fact that Williamson was not an integral part of writing "Scream 3" sounded to me like the nail in the coffin.

I was disturbed early on by the news that Ehren Kruger would be writing "Scream 3" instead of Williamson, less because of Kruger's talents than the fact that "Scream" was Williamson's vision and his trilogy. People greatly undervalue how difficult it is to write a GOOD slasher film, i.e. something above the likes of "Halloween 5."

Kruger has, miraculously, pulled it off.

A big mistake a lot of people make is that they think "Scream 2" and "Scream 3" are sequels. They are not. The three films are really meant to be a trilogy, and just like Randy (Jamie Kennedy) pointed out in the second film, a trilogy is inherently not subject to the same criticisms alotted to sequels. Sequels are cash cows, made for making $, whereas the obligation with continuations of "Star Wars" and "Scream" is strictly creative, regardless of public opinion.

Some of Williamson's crucial ideas for the "Scream 3" outline, such as the making of a film within-a-film, were fortunately able to survive through Kruger's script, thus completing the "Scream" saga rightfully. Also, while I did enjoy "Scream 2" immensely, I did feel that at the end Williamson was becoming a little desperate for ideas. I would sincerely doubt that he could have pulled off the major twist ending Kruger did at the end featured in "Scream 3." The killer revealed at the finale of "S3" ties everything together, not just within the film itself but the trilogy as a whole.

Perhaps the performances in "Scream 3" are not above-par. While Neve Campbell actually does elevate Sidney into a changed person, David and Courtney Cox Arquette do leave a bit to be desired. Dewey is less of a dim-wit than before, which may fit into the whole "advance the characters" thing, but he was much more enjoyable as the Gump cop he played in the first two. And the Gale Weathers hair-do has got to go! Her hair was good in the first, and went downhill from there.

Despite such shortcomings, "Scream 3" does manage to put itself alongside the first two in terms of quality. I imagine the following for this chapter will be much like that for "The Godfather Part III." It has a lot of detractors but I thought that was a great film too. What made both "G-3" and "S-3" work so well was that they realized that anything new introduced in the final act must be minimal, and that everything introduced in the first and second films' events must come full circle.

For contrast, just look at how poorly the concept of a "final act" is handled in an actual all-out sequel: in "Alien 3," the prequel-survivors crashland, ALL die in the film, and all because there was another alien stowaway (recycled from the original). What a waste of 135+ minutes of screentime in "Aliens" of developing these characters only to knock most of them off without any mercy in the first few minutes of "Alien 3!"

In "Scream 3," we are not just given another serial killer, there IS a backstory that absolutely ties very neatly into the first film, and by the last shot of the movie, we know that "Scream" is finished. Of course, this is the art form in which sequels have been made to "Gone With the Wind" and "Psycho," so what's to stop the FIRST "Scream" sequel from being made? Now that would NOT be my favorite scary movie...

Just to clear up those rumors... Unfortunate news has it that the outline originally penned by writer Kevin Williamson for Scream 3 was rejected completely by director Wes Craven & company in favor of a completely original screenplay written by little-known Ehren Kruger.

To me this is an injustice.

The filmmakers should have waited for Williamson to have the time to write a full script instead of rushing into production as they did. Sure, we get the same tired excuses, such as the scheduling conflicts of the stars and the increasing demand for higher salary, but the fact is, the Scream saga was originally planned as a trilogy by writer Williamson. Craven, gifted though he may be, did not create Scream. He was merely an interpretor.

Scream 3 may turn out to be fun and perhaps even "good" if Kruger and Craven are lucky, but all it can be viewed as is a sequel- no more, no less. With this kind of deal who is to stop Dimension from pursuing a Scream 4, 5, and 6?

Scream was hatched by Kevin Williamson, and Scream 2 was the second act to it. Scream 3 will not be the third act; at best and in true definition it can only be described as the mint you are handed by the theater clerk on the way out of the movie.

Only a film this popular could have a line divided so sharply between those who love it and those who detest it. I tend to not only discuss a film's technical and artistic merits but it's impact on society as well, and I find "Titanic" to be very rich grounds for both. I find it to be a beautiful film in nearly all directions, and though it has some flaws in it, it is for the most part a thoroughly engrossing emotional goldmine of a story. Some find this to be a negative mark.

I however see James Cameron's film as perhaps one of the most honest epics of its kind. The affect of the film is amazing in scale if you let it in. Many, especially those who ignored it while it was in theaters and waited for the video, tend to say how banal the dialogue is, how poorly written the script is, or that it's only reason for success was the millions of Leo-fans and FX gurus who lined the blocks to see it.

My take on this latter hypothesis is that these people must have sleep-walked through the six months the film was in the top 10, ignoring the fact that something extraordinary was happening in not only America but the world as well: millions wanted to embrace something they felt true to their hearts. Look in the history of box office hits and I can guarantee you'll find a difficult time locating any film people went to see four or five times because their favorite actor was in it, or they loved the special effects and nothing else. And for the Leo-excuse: did anyone ever take into account that no other film starring this magazine-seller even surpassed $60 million in domestic receipts (ten times LESS than "Titanic" made)? Johnny Depp and Jonathan Taylor-Thomas are living proof that a handsome actor can sell those teeny-bopper books but their battle to sell tickets is more often where they lose out.

Yep, that 13 year old WORLDWIDE female economy is sure booming these days! Granted, those girls made up for a reliable portion. But come on people, $1.8 billion throughout the planet?!?!? That's a lot of dough! The reason a film like this works well not just with teens but with senior citizens who haven't been to the theater in fifteen years is because it resonates with them in a deep, emotional way.

"Titanic" sets up a great historical tragedy with a traditional love story, probably not all that different than something DeMille or Zanuck would've cooked up in the 1930's. It is very easy to see "Titanic" as another Zanuck/ Technicolor production, starring a teen Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh. Someone told Shakespeare while he was writing "Romeo and Juliet" that a teen love story cannot be written because teenage love/ emotions is not real. Shakespeare did not listen to this garbage, and neither did Cameron. We should be glad that both of them kept their ears plugged.

I won't even begin to go into all the reasons why this is a masterpiece. I will go so far as to say that I am happy it did not start immediately with the iceberg collision. The whole point of the love story which precedes it is to make the disaster of the sinking all the more enormous when it hits, because we care for the lovers Jack and Rose so much. Some say this is the part of the film that suffers, that the set-up is not believable and cliched. I think it works well beause DiCaprio and Kate Winslet are both terrific actors, and while the dialogue is a couple of times hard to bare, the structure of the story is so well filmed and paced that it is hard to care. Some even argue that the love story is pathetic because you cannot really fall in love with somebody over a period of a few days. This is probably the worst reasoning I have heard. Anyone who doesn't believe in this type of love just has not experienced it. It does exist though, and it is a beautiful form of it because the developments of lack of trust were not the first things to enter the relationship. It's called wild romanticism, not lust, and it is something we all need to feel at one time or another.

I cannot convince why "Titanic" worked so well with so many millions of people. I can only say for sure why it connected with me. It hit me in the heart and while it felt good to feel for these lovers, it also felt horrible to see where it ended. It's terrible to see 1, 500 people lose their lives on a cruise to New York, and it's more so when you learn of the extreme dedication that was made to accurately portray the sinking. That is something I find difficult not to connect with.

What an achievement this film was! Perhaps the most interesting film I have seen this past year, it certainly tops my list as the best film of 1999. It is perhaps in my top 5 of the decade. Brilliant direction by stage director-turned film director Sam Mendes brings to life an intelligent script that is free of the contrivances that so many other films have offered as an excuse for intricately woven material.

Ever since "Pulp Fiction" ushered in a new wave of independent films (they're cheaper by the dozen it seems) we have seen one too many dozen bad excuses for an "indie" film; sometimes it seems they become more conventional than your typical Hollywood cop-buddy film: you know, a bunch of colorful characters who get together to pull off a crime, they wear dark clothes, they swear more than they actually converse, and then about 99.9 % of them die by film's end. Even Tarantino himself has secluded himself from the film world it seems, only occassionally taking part in a film production- maybe the impact Pulp Fiction had was a little imposing for him.

And here we have Mendes' American Beauty, one of the freshest takes on the lives of "everyday Americans" I have seen. Kevin Spacey leads a very fine cast in this tale of an emotionally (and morally) bankrupt man whose family detests him. Spacey, through the crush of a girl less than half his age, manages to find new ways to redeem himself: he smokes marijuana and starts working out to lose that flab (sometimes both at the same time!). He even gets a very decent settlement from his employers, which leads to his buying a 1970 Pontiac Firebird... and a new job at a fast food joint he's been dying to work at. Now you gotta love a guy like this.

It is funny however, no matter how much you rave about this film, when people hear the story, there is always at least one eye brow raised. But forget those Hollywood anxieties. This Beauty is a blast.

I must say that I found many parts of "Message in a Bottle" well done, but the pace, wildy out of place music, and sometimes stiff direction water down the impact of the film. It has occassionally good acting, and emotions run deep within the story, but the film's goals are set so high it falls all the more short of it's goal.

We are given a decent love story in the first 90 percent of the movie, not a great one, but a good one. We also see a decent depiction of a man trying to overcome personal obstacles so that he may love again, and we finally see him triumph.... when suddenly, for no reason at all, the carpet is pulled right under our feet.

The ending of "Message in a Bottle" disturbed me, not because of the fact that "not all life is happy endings," but that the filmmakers thought this was their best option available to them :kill off the lead actor so that we can make our movie different and more sad than the other romances out there. I have not read the novel, but the movie itself is a study of redemption, of forgiveness, and familial love. The ending is a study of nothing other than a desperate attempt by the filmmakers to tug at your tear ducts all the more. And that is all.

"Return of the Jedi" has some of the strongest and most poignant moments of the entire "Star Wars" saga. There are moments of chilling visual symbolism. The climactic space battle is extremely well-choreographed, possibly one of the most well done special effects sequences in cinematic history. And George Lucas does well on finding a suitable climax for the series. There is a minority that says this was a cheap thing to throw in but I totally disagree. This scene is sad but ultimately touching, which I think will be made all the more so when the six stories are complete. The ending scene in the special edition is far more satisfying than it was originally.

Which brings me to my complaints.

"Jedi" is slow-moving, from the long, drawn-out scenes in Jabba's palace, to the Endor battle with the Ewoks, an act in the film that is so poorly marred by bad pace and editing that you have to wonder whether the editors were suffering from severe attention deficit disorder while they were doing it. And let's not forget those Ewoks. Don't get me wrong, they are cute. But what in God's name do these little furballs have to do with the Force and the Rebellion?

And then of course we have the acting. The one guy who seems to be really trying here is Mark Hammil (for once), who was never a very capable actor anyway but he does have some moments in which he shines here. I think what he did best in this one was actually underacting the role rather than playing the same old farmboy whiner ("A New Hope") or the hero who thinks he can do anything ("Empire"). Then there's Carrie Fisher. I actually thought she was decent in "A New Hope," and she was occassionally quite beautiful in "Empire." And she was attractive here as well, but man, that acting has got to go!!!

I think this is the one film I did not really care for Harrison Ford, which is rather difficult because he is one of my top three favorite actors. Between the first two films we got the sense this character was changing, becoming a better man than the wisecrack we were used to. But in "Jedi" he's back to the same old wisecracks. In "Empire" he really started to look like he was caring for people, especially Luke- which is totally evident in the beginning of "Empire." In "Jedi" he's already back to looking down on him. Above all Ford himself seems disengaged from the film, bored with the material- something he admits, and something I do not blame him for at all.

Again, there are moments of greatness in "Jedi." The score by John Williams is very good, some of the sets are impressive.

These are the moments that illustrate to me the style that should have prevailed throughout the whole film.

There are few times that I have seen a film as packed with visual splendors as Terence Malick's "The Thin Red Line". The beauty of the cinematography is unmatched by any other film this year as far as this reviewer is concerned. At the same time I must admit that this must have also been the hardest film to follow all year. Some praise this, most especially the current film enthusiasts of the day. Personally I have to be able to at least semi-understand about at least 50 percent of the movie the first time I see it, or much of the power that could have been is lost.

I have not read the novel upon which this film was based, though I assume that Malick was floored by certain ideas in the book and when it came to the making of the drama it became a whole new emotional odyssey for the director. It shows in the film. One of the worst flaws in the film is Malick's ill decision to showcase so many superstar actors in such small parts. If they played larger and more important roles they may have made an impact on me, but as it is they are just plain distracting. In order for films such as this you almost have to make up a cast of unknowns in order for their characters to have any lasting effect on you. If you don't do that, you find yourself always recalling that was just Woody Harrelson dying, not his character. It is OK to have maybe one or two prominent stars in the film, but to basically send a casting call that says "Attention, all superstar actors, play a minor role along with five or six others in a WW II film", well, it really can hurt the film.

Just look at the performance Jim Caviezel put in as the soldier whom the story focuses most on. As of now he is still the only character I can even remember caring about. And along with Nick Nolte, the only major star in a truly exceptional role, he gave the only performance that really registered with me. And nobody knows this guy!! Sean Penn was good too, though I wished they could have put a little more development into his character.

I think the main flaw of the film, aside from the odd (!) editing style as employed by Malick, is the fact that this movie could really have been about any other war and you would not have known it. True, a war film should be able to represent more than the just the war it is about with it's message, but in "The Thin Red Line" there is not much of anything as far as historical value is concerned. I watched this with a close friend who also happens to be a Vietnam War veteran, and he complained of the same thing. Where did this take place again? Oh yeah, Guadalcanal... What importance did that have?

We do see a few impressive battle scenes, and this is partly where Malick's editing becomes a bit too noticeable. While watching a film, you should not be thinking about the editing. Some of this did work, don't get me wrong: I came out knowing that one of the statements in the film was most certainly that war affects all creatures, no matter how small. A particularly effective scene occurred where a poor bird was bleeding to death and was struggling to regain its footing. The problem is, that is all I can remember from that scene. I remember there being machine gun fire, explosions, people dying (though on few occasions were deaths graphic).

Is this about the sacrifice made by soldiers in the war, as in "Saving Private Ryan" (a very different and more conventional WW II film- which is thankfully also a lot more coherent)? Or is this about stray bullets hitting birds in the sky? (I know it is all meant to symbolize a whole lot more than what I just said.)

So perhaps the biggest problem with the film is that it was just too ambitious.

I do recommend "The Thin Red Line" to win an Oscar for best cinematography, and perhaps even a screenplay Oscar to Mr. Malick simply for coming out of retirement from movies after 20 years to make something that undoubtedly took so much heart and energy to create. I just wish I could understand what the heck it was all about.

In my opinion one of the year's best films, I cannot help but pity poor Universal and director George Miller for the loss of the sequel to "Babe." Kudos go to them for making a film so original and daring, so out of place in the family film market today, as it defies almost everything that stands for these days: you don't forget the entire movie within a few hours; rather, it stays with you, filling your head with bold and imaginative images that rival those of the best children's books out there.

"Babe: Pig in the City" is much like many other great sequels ("The Empire Strikes Back," "Aliens") in that it is superior to the original but so different from it, that it is not even worth making a comparison of the two. Why have so many people rejected it? Why was it on so many critics' ten best lists, and the public shunned it so much? It is really rather simple. There is no place for a THOUGHT-PROVOKING family film in this day and age, with the exception of perhaps "The Prince of Egypt."

The thing that makes me laugh here is, teenagers and adults alike are commenting on how violent "Babe 2" is, yet if I remember correctly few or no animals at all die in the film. And no big deal seems to be made when the same stuff happens to human beings in "family films."

To be honest, I don't think they should have rated it G, simply because it seems that anyone seeing this under the age of nine would be confused and perplexed by it. Most people over that age however should be able to follow it well, and understand that the things happening in it are no worse than what kids (and especially teens) see everyday, whether it's on TV's "The Simpsons" (my favorite show) or something at the multiplex (a whole ARMY of people gets drowned in "The Prince of Egypt"- a PG rated film).

In the end I am truly hoping that "Babe: Pig in the City" is given at least some Oscar nominations, especially for the art direction, cinematography, and visual effects- all of which were superb. A great movie, even though it has not found an audience.

This movie just screams: "Give it another chance!"

Some of you people should be ashamed of yourselves. How dare you take a film that is so much based on true events like "Saving Private Ryan" and dismiss it like it is just another "cinematic experience?!?"

Some of you seemed disappointed about the amount of gore portrayed in this film, saying that it was nothing more than a bunch of arms and legs getting blown off. Have people REALLY gotten this narrow-minded? Are your convictions with Steven Spielberg so fierce that you have to ignore the fact that ALMOST EVERYTHING YOU ARE SEEING IN THE DOOMSDAY SCENE IS BASED ON FACTUAL ACCOUNTS?!? Were you the same people who said "Schindler's List" should not have been made by Spielberg simply because he was not a Holocaust survivor?!? Well, grow up!

You don't have to call "Saving Private Ryan" the best film ever made. You don't even have to LIKE it. But at the very least you should take a mature action and RESPECT it. This is not a game, people. It has to do with your very right to walk free today, over fifty years after so many thousands of people sacrificed their lives so that we may live free. This is NOT "Indiana Jones and World War II," so stop pretending like it is.

My grandfather fought in WW II and he would be to say the least, insulted by some of the harsh comments mentioned here. For the many thousands of veterans and Americans like him, keep your wasteful opinions to yourself.

I realize that "Titanic" is really the kind of movie where you love it or hate it for what it is. And I must say that in all truth I side strongly with the 'love it' category.

When I first saw this masterpiece, nearly a year ago, I was in short amazed at the power director James Cameron had achieved. By setting up the actual Titanic disaster with a love story he was able to make me feel like I was right there on the decks of the Titanic as she sank below the Atlantic surface. Seeing 1,500 people freezing to death in the chilling ocean waters in the dark early morning of April the 15th, 1912, I was simply shocked, chilled, mostly because of the realization that this is what happened. Also having known that Cameron had labored so long and hard to get even the most non-essential details correct in his depiction of the ocean liner's disaster helped me feel it too.

There is definitely a lesson to be learned from "Titanic". Quite a few really. For one thing it is the ultimate reminder that no matter how technologically advanced we are, God will always have the last word on everything. Perhaps Titanic the disaster was a reminder that we need to be careful what ideas we get about our power. "She is unsinkable. God Himself could not sink this ship," said the character Cal.

Another lesson, this one related to film: if you are going to spend hundreds of millions on the making and marketing of a film, at least make an honest effort to give the audience a story they can feel, and be involved with. Recent films such as "Armageddon" and "Godzilla", I think, have been hurt by this overwhelming realization by audiences. The gross of "Titanic", which has hit $1.8 billion worldwide, testifies a new hunger for movies that tell their story with really great effects in them, rather than stories written around the idea of effects.

I know there are many dissenters out there for this film, but like it or not, twenty years from now there will be a big re-release for this wonderful epic, and again the world will be caught in a Titanic craze, and I will be telling my children about when "Titanic" first came out- just as my dad tells me now about when "Star Wars" came out he was floored as well- like ninety percent of the rest of the movie-going nation. "Titanic" works so well because it hits so many basic levels of human feeling, because it has such a strong understanding of what the devotion of love is.

And for those of you who call off "Titanic" and its success to "Leo-Mania," I went to see "Titanic" ten times in the theater. I am not a big Leo-fan, and I know he's done better work than this. I am 19 and I'm a guy. Going to see this in the theater, not once in those ten times did the audience consist of at least 75 percent adults.

A masterpiece. "Nuff said.

Though it is far from Steven Spielberg's best work, it is also not his worst. The Lost World improves in certain ways on the original and yes, it devolves in many ways too. For one, the visual effects are even better. The score by John Williams is terrific, and I must say the overall look is more atmospheric and absorbing than the squeaky-clean theme park look of the first Jurassic Park. The problem is that too much of the film is spent with the more frightening dinosaurs, rather than the calm majestic sense that Spielberg allows the dinos to have in the original for the first hour before he went off and gave us the thrill ride. Also the sequel forgets that what made the first one so successful was that it managed to give us a thought-provoking set-up. The Lost World offers none of that. As an adventure it is above average but as a Spielberg film it is admittedly below par. Still, it can be said that the scenes reintegrated by FOX on TV helped establish more plot development. They helped develop characters and it is anyone's guess why Spielberg had them cut. They are making a third film, so despite what people thought of this episode, everyone will again be flocking to see JP 3 when it comes out. Cast hopefuls: Jeff Goldblum (da), Sam Neill, Pete Postelthwaite, Richard Attenborough, and why not- Richard Dreyfuss. For being a loose, entertaining venture, I give this an 8. But a very low 8, indeed.