Reviews

With a movie like "The 13th Warrior", all the elements must work or else the whole thing falls apart. Luckily, following in the recent trend of high-quality movie-making, this film holds together well enough to be both entertaining and unique within it's genre. (Which is, I might add, a genre of "Braveheart"'s and "First Knight"'s that I could, as a whole, do without.)

Though he's excellent in the film -- his first real bit of acting in a long time -- that Spanish-American actor who's name I will not speak here is not the star of "The 13th Warrior". It should remain that way. Not that I don't like ol' A.B. but I don't know if he's got what it takes to carry an entire film alone. Here he doesn't have to worry about that because he's got such an outstanding screenplay to fall back on.

What makes the script so remarkable, you ask?

Well, it takes a rather trite idea and makes it, somehow, into a fresh, new kind of vision. In closing, from someone who doesn't even like these kinds of films, I have to say this was a very, very, very good job, guys.

"Very Bad Things" is another film in the recent push-it-over-the-top-and-then-some trend. The drug-snorting teens in "The Faculty" and the sperm-turned-hair-gel in "There's Something About Mary" are a couple of other good examples of this highly refreshing (and often funny) new breed of movie.

Sure, it kind of falls apart nearer the end and, yeah, that climax is way to far over-the-edge for a lot of people (I'm one of them) but the film itself was a nice yet bloody, neat yet jagged, nerve-wrecking and car-wrecking hour-and-a-half of screaming, pull-out-your-hair fun.

By the way, Christian Slater CAN act! Was anybody thinking of his action figure-friendly turn in "Broken Arrow" or his Mickey and Mallory-wannabe hippy role in "True Romance" as they watched this guy weazel his way through this flick? If so, you're the first.

By in large, this is a creative look at a trite concept and, if you wanna pay the rental fee, you should at least give it a whirl around the block. Couldn't hurt.

At least "I Know What You Did Last Summer" had some wit and real humor and character despite the simple fact that it was horribly transparent in it's genre. Now, take that and subtract the wit, the humor, and....uh, well, the character and you get this mess: "I STILL Know What You Did Last Summer." (Oooo...the horror.)

Jennifer Love-Hewitt's acting has never been flatter. Brandy has never sounded so much like a third grader pretending to be an actress. And a script has never before been....well, just this BAD!!! It's amazing how much you miss Sarah Michelle Gellar, Ryan Phillippe, and Kevin Williamson when they're not around, you know. As some kind of strange recoup, the story tries throwing in all the usual sexual babble. After a while though, you just finally come to the realization that, in fact, these characters are nothing but horny. They are trite carbon copies of the "Porky's" kids. Really, does Hollywood actually think teens are THAT shallow?!! From other recent, better, fare I was beginning to think not, but now that I've seen this I'm honestly starting to wonder.

Oh, well.

No more, please, Mister Fisherman. You've come back a second time and, for some reason unknown to me, killed a bunch of innocent people on an island. I was led to believe that you actually just wanted revenge for that whole running-you-over-and-then-dumping-you thing but I guess you're just another mindless slasher after all. Well, there's no room for you in the '90s, pal. Go find some "Friday the 13th" film to haunt.

I rented "Digger" not expecting much more than an eighty-minute kiddie flick with a few corny one-liners and maybe a nice, little story hidden somewhere deep in there. I was pleasantly surprised when, as soon as the credits rolled, I found myself crying over this thing! It was amazing! Sure, it does fall prey to a lot of the same-o-same-o kiddie flick conventions, but the over-all effect of the story I found to be overwhelming. (NOTE: This could just be because I'm partial to buddy films.)

Adam Hann-Byrd is often staring off into space, but at least with this character that doesn't seem to hurt much. (Maybe he was even doing it on purpose. Who knows?) Joshua Jackson showed an amazing ammount of range compared to some of the more smart-mouthed roles he's conformed to nowadays. Still, my one problem with the cast is the almost non-appearance of Leslie Neilsen. He's such a great dramatic actor (despite all that slapstick mess) and this could have been the role of the decade for him. Oh, well. Maybe in "Digger 2", huh?

"Digger" is not the best movie on earth, but it does deserve a look if you're into the family-tearjerker-buddy film genre. Not bad at all, guys.

"The War" is one of the few "kid" movies that takes itself seriously enough to be loved and appreciated by young and old audiences alike. I would have supported this film to the very end. After all, any vehicle that convincingly gives peace and love a chance deserves a little attention. (Peace and love are such rare qualities nowadays.)

The cast is excellent. Kevin Costner is a little stiff at the beginning but I think that's a good thing. Giving the younger (and equally talented) stars a chance to shine is a smart move on his part. He does get to cut loose in a few fleeting scenes. Also outstanding (when is he not?) is Elijah Wood (a.k.a. the next Tom Hanks) as Costner's angry, multi-layered, deeply troubled son. His frustrations are so well expressed that often times you feel like you could just step in and help him solve his problems.

What is worth fighting for? Nothing. Because as long as you have love, you have everything. Wisdom for both the kiddies and the grown-ups. Just be warned that the film does contain some strong violence and language.

The only reason "The Faculty" has not gotten the attention and profits it deserves is because some stupid marketing guy figured it would be a GOOD idea to open it on CHRISTMAS weekend against JULIA ROBERTS, JOHN TRAVOLTA, and ROBIN WILLIAMS!!! Sorry, but this film didn't have a chance with that kind of star power pushing against it!

Nonetheless, this was an outstanding blend of comedy and sci-fi suspense with an incredible, young cast and a concept so utterly corny that it's brilliant. Elijah Wood (the next Tom Hanks, in my opinion), Josh Hartnett, Shawn Hatosy, Clea DuVall, Laura Harris, and Jordana Brewster prove that they have more than just a little acting talent as they juggle this silly/scary material (which was, of course, provided by THE Kevin Williamson). Also worth mentioning among the cast, Robert Patrick and Jon Stewart gave their characters a certain menace and charm that fit perfectly in this vehicle.

I'd like to close by saying that a lot of people contend this film isn't good because it isn't another "Scream." Problem is, those same people would be complaining if the film had been a carbon copy of the infamous 1996 sleeper hit that started this new teen revolution. Guys, don't hope for this to be ANOTHER "Scream." Instead, look at it as being the movie that does to the sci-fi genre what "Scream" did to the horror genre. The SAME effect, but a different (and equally excellent) product!

NOTE TO USHER FANS: He's hardly in the movie! The two scenes you see in the trailer are NOT present in the final cut of the film! Don't go just to see him or you'll be sorely disappointed.

Brian DePalma can make some really great films like "Mission: Impossible" but he can also make some really awful disappointments like "Raising Cain" and this weak, little movie called "Snakes Eyes."

The first half of the film is awesomely written and directed, but, as soon as the cat is out of the bag (and that comes sooner than you think), the movie fizzles into a shockingly disappointing failure of a film. First off, the "real" bad guy is so easy to spot it's laughable. Second off, does that girl in the film ever really DO anything aside from standing around and looking like a deer caught in a set of headlights for 90-plus minutes?!! I never even got a name, but, then again, maybe she didn't have one. Really, who cares?! (In fact, DePalma might have actually thought the concept of a nameless "heroine" was a plus.)

What it boils down to is this director's overpowering urge to BE Alfred Hitchcock. Problem is, Hitchcock invented the style he used. DePalma's different in that all he does is use the Master's fifty year old methods (split-screens, real-time photography, passing through walls, etc.) that, by this point, have been imitated so many times that they don't really even register an impact on the audience anymore!

Oh, well. There's always that "Mission: Impossible 2" coming up, right?

"The Other Sister" is just one of those great dramatic movies. It's unusual, it's touching, it's funny. It has all the qualities that cause it to stand alone and that's what I really, really loved about it.

The story centers around Juliette Lewis ("Natural Born Killers") as a 24-year-old retarded girl from a family of rich parents, played by Diane Keaton ("First Wives Club") and Tom Skerritt ("Picket Fences", "Contact"). The fact that she's the youngest sister in the family doesn't seem to bother her as much as the overbearing control her mother seems to always have over her life and her decisions. Still, she becomes determined to break free of her mom's strangle hold as soon as she finds and falls for a young retarded kid from her college, played by Giovanni Ribisi ("Friends", "subUrbia").

Juliette does a breathtaking job at capturing all the twitches and ticks of a retarded lady. One heartbreaking scene at a country club dinner particularly displays how great she is at conveying an empathy toward the plight of slow people everywhere. Diane Keaton was also quite good, but am I the only person who's noticed the fact that she wears a business suit in every movie she's in?!! Tom Sherritt doesn't steal any scenes, but his quiet take on the loving father is very refreshing. And last, but not least, Giovanni displays a good deal of range considering only a few years ago he was throwing lightning bolts at people on that "X-Files" episode.

On the whole, "The Other Sister" is a great movie that leaves you begging for a sequel. (Juliette Lewis as "Karla" is just SO lovable!!!)

We've waited twenty years for THIS?!! An hour and twenty minutes of under-developed characters who do the silly things that people in horror films are "expected" to do and get their asses killed for their efforts?

Jamie Lee Curtis lends a certain amount of magic. She's under used. They have the chance to really make something thrilling here but when Michael and her finally come face-to-face, I felt a little less than excited. Maybe that's because I'd already realized what a lame film this was by then.

I think the moment I started hating this effort is when the two stupid, meaningless, under-developed must-dies showed up. (I think their names were Charlie and Sarah.) Instantly, you know they are going to die. Then when they do, you never knew them well enough to feel for them. They are sheep lined up for slaughter and, of course, that's exactly what happens.

Josh Hartnett did great with what he had but the mild drama that whole mother-and-son sub-plot delivered was a little less than lukewarm by the climax. (Which is, in my opinion, the worse cop-out I've ever seen.)

Michelle Williams is (BIG SHOCK) also extremely under-used as Molly. A girl who just kind of shrieks and cries her way through the beginning, middle, and end of this sorry, little horror film. I thought her character was going to some how get passed the torch but, apparently, I was dead wrong. Instead, she....well, she doesn't really do anything.

Sorry, folks. We waited twenty years and we still don't have a movie half as good as the original. If you haven't seen H20. Don't. The movie I imagined in my mind was a lot better than the one I rented.

"Godzilla" was a movie I was expecting to be really great. After "Independence Day" (the BEST film of its kind, in my opinion) I began to look at Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin as two of the best up-and-comers in their genre. Then I read where they have somehow decided to take the drama element out of their scripts. I'm sorry, fellas, but it was the drama of your earlier movies that made them so great and different. It was the characters that you actually can relate to and care about. In "Godzilla" there is nothing to grasp onto. No dimensions. Not even a slight sense of realism.

Let's see if I can sum up this lazy, size-is-everything movie. There's a boyfriend who is a really bad actor who likes a blond girl who is an even worse actress who has a couple of annoying friends that just kind of stand around and try to make the audience laugh. There's a hunter guy with an accent who really looks like he can lend a lot to the situation until the action actually begins after which he really doesn't do much of anything. There's a played-for-laughs mayor who also tries to slay the audience with his humor and fails. Oh, yeah, there's a really, really big lizard, too.

So, that about sums it up. You have no reason to subject yourself to this horrible mess of a movie now. Save yourself the money and self-respect. Rent "Independence Day" and pray Roland and Dean come back to their senses.

Screenwriter Peter Atkins did a terrible rip-off with this screenplay. The problem is, the guy's ripping off himself. This movie is a near carbon-copy of another movie he wrote called "Hellraiser III." (That one was actually a pretty good movie in my opinion.) It's like they said "we need you to write a movie by tomorrow" and he just pulled out that script and changed the cube to a crystal, the demon to a genie, and set the party scene (which is almost exactly the same in both movies) in a mansion rather than a night-club. Wes, you are such a good director, why can't you learn to produce?

"So-so" is the best way I can describe "I Know What You Did Last Summer." The movie plays smoothly but it's as transparent as a piece of glass. Lois Duncan should have gotten more credit, in my opinion, since she did, after all, write the source novel. Kevin Williamson packed the first half of the film with plenty of clever dialogue but, by the end, Freddie Prinze, Jr. and Jennifer Love Hewitt were sounding more like soap opera lackies than movie stars. (Freddie really sounded bad with that "No one gets me like you do" line. Jennifer didn't do any better with her reply: "I feel your pain.") Still, the jolt that got everybody in the theater where I watched it was the Anne Heche banging on the car window gag. It's good to see them again making slasher movies where the killer poses real harm to the heroes. If you LOVED "Scream" then you'd probably LIKE "I Know What You Did Last Summer."

"Apt Pupil" is not the best of its kind but it's far from the worst. It's not a horror movie, to begin with, it's a drama. I was expecting it to be slightly more disturbing than it was. The only part that struck me as particularly unsettling was the first dream sequence Todd (Brad Renfro) has. Besides those few moments, the rest of the film was comfortably bearable for me. It was also much better, in my opinion, than Stephen King's original story. If you're looking for a dark, interestingly morbid movie, this one MAY suit your tastes.

"The Shining" was supposed to be a great adaptation to the original book. I watched it in the hopes of seeing Stephen King (who wrote the script) do something new and fresh with the old concept. What I got was a mini-series full of "aw-shucks" dialogue and corny one-liners.

Steven Weber is wildly miscast as "Jack Torrence." Courtland Mead (who plays "Danny") isn't a bad actor but he's a little TOO cute for the role. Also, I liked the way Kubrick showed Tony (Danny's make-believe friend). It was slyly creepy. The guy who plays Tony in this movie is so corny he's funny.

The mini-series, as a whole, has a brand new feel but the music, visuals, dialogue, relationships, you name it, weren't as good as in the 1980 version of the story. If you like more light, mainstream stuff, you might enjoy this mini-series. Personally, I think you were right, Stanley. They SHOULD have left it alone.

"Dawson's Creek" is a fresh, bold show. It doesn't soften up teenage life the way some shows in the past have. Sure, "90210" was here first and sure, "Party of Five" has a couple years on it, but "Dawson's Creek" is far more original in its dialogue than those other programs. (Then again, what are you to expect from Kevin Williamson?)

When is Dawson Leery (James Van Der Beek) going to stop whining? When is Joey Potter (Katie Holmes) going to stop complaining? When is Jen Lindsay (Michelle Williams) going to get her act together? And when is somebody going to give Pacey Witter (Joshua Jackson) a swift kick in the teeth?

Is this show sometimes annoying? Sure. Is its success overrated? NO WAY! It's all the whining and complaining and sluttiness and glib remarks that make the show what it is. "Creek" is not for everybody. It's for light-hearted teens who don't mind getting a little advice from TV's most popular smart-asses.

With "The Langoliers," I don't know how the actors kept a straight face. The corny dialogue (which featured those two stupid, little words "The Langoliers" far too often) was full of cheesy camp. It might not have been that bad if the same dumb sentences weren't repeated twenty times over by the over-wrought, made-to-look-dumb characters.

The actors REALLY tried, too. I was often embarrassed for them. Still, Bronson Pinchot conveyed some little sense of menace as a man on the edge of insanity. I should also point out that a great actor like Dean Stockwell deserves much better than this.

By the climax of this cheap thriller (which is packed full of dull-looking computer animation) the film has spun hopelessly out of control.

Oh, well.

May it rest in peace with the other bad King adaptations.

"Wes Craven's New Nightmare" is the breath of life this failing series needed to jolt it back to the top. Wes Craven has made a film that is post-modernly breath-taking.

Heather Langenkamp is a sight for sore eyes as she returns to play HERSELF! Robert Englund is dazzling as both himself and as the new, more frightening-looking Freddy Krueger. Miko Hughes is notably great as Heather's son. Hey, even John Saxon is back! It's enough to make a fan of the first three films in this series scream with joy!

Sure, this movie has its flaws but they are NOTHING compared to ones in the previous two sequels. Yes, sir! This is what the "Nightmare" series was meant to be!

"Freddy's Dead" did the smartest thing it could've done after the disappointment of the fifth film. It started from scratch. Sure, this "final" film in the saga is silly but at least it's original. Some of the visuals are even a bit breath-taking. And the story of Freddy's kid (Lisa Zane) returning to town to face her evil father is unique.

Overall, the movie is nothing but another cartoon made to get kids in the theater. It has a bunch of good actors (Zane, Yaphet Kotto, and Lezlie Deane) who basically look dumb and wander around like sheep ready for slaughter. It's one-sided, it's a magic-trick, and, in the end, it's nothing but goofy, childish entertainment.

"A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child" seems confused. It doesn't know what to do. Should it be dark like the first three or lighter like the fourth film? The filmmakers' answer: why don't we go both ways. Needless to say, they failed miserably. The story of a pregnant Alice trying to save her unborn baby from Freddy even sounds promising but there's no drama here.

The film is too busy trying to be serious to have any funny moments. When they do try the whole Freddy-says-something-funny thing, it just doesn't work. The CLIMAX is even boringly unbearable. I wish they would've used Lisa Wilcox a little more this time but her Alice character simply has nowhere to go after her transformation in the fourth film. Sorry, guys, you should've screwed your heads on a little straighter before you filmed this thing!

"A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master" is a film I rather liked. Sure, it trades the dark, disturbing format of the first three films for a lighter, more colorful approach but as least it has a good story. I loved watching the path of young Alice (played by a great actress named Lisa Wilcox) as she went from a tepid school-girl to a Ripley-like butt-kicker.

Set back at the old high school, the film takes out the fantasy gore and replaces it with special-effects that are both gross and silly. The result: a pop-culture cartoon full of bright, dazzling visuals. If you like Freddy as he might be seen by the South Park kids, you'd probably like this fourth installment.

"A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors" is the second best in the series. How they managed to recover after that lukewarm second film, I don't know. This story sees the return of Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp) years after the first film's conclusion. This time she has to protect a disturbed young girl (a surprisingly powerful and moving Patricia Arquette) and a group of teen outcasts from Freddy. (Robert Englund looks even scarier than usual this time around.)

Set in a state mental hospital, the gloomy atmosphere lends a lot to the fright factor of this horror film. The performances are some of the best in the series. Craig Wasson is a fine actor. Larry Fishburne turns up as a hospital orderly. Even part one's John Saxon appears for a few fleeting scenes. Freddy gets more screen-time in this one and that's definitely a plus since he's so dark and scary! Indeed, this is the last of the intense Freddy movies. Luckily, they got in one last ode to the great clawed one before moving into lighter territory.

"A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge" is usually hounded by critics. I would have to agree with them for once. The film is about a teen boy (played by Mark Patton) who moves into the Elm Street house and falls prey to Freddy Krueger.

It's not very good at all. The story is as slow as a snail. The actors are not all THAT bad but the script by David Chaskin is lacking both purpose and originality. It doesn't rip off the first but at times you wished it would. Needless to say, this utterly forgettable film is not the best in the series.

One last note: That Patton kid sure screams like Heather Langenkamp. Geez!

"A Nightmare on Elm Street" is the first installment in the ever-so-popular series that continues even today. The plot centers around an unlikely heroine named Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp) who must save herself and her friends (Johnny Depp is one of them) from the bearly-glimpsed-through-the-shadows embodiment of evil known as Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund).

There's no slowing down with this story and, in this context, that's a good thing. The unsettling horror the film pulses with strikes every human nerve possible. Sometimes you feel like you're there fighting this monster right along side Nancy! The darkness of the movie is engulfing and eerie. Freddy has never seemed more menacing than he does in this first chapter. Great job, guys.

I have to be honest and say right off the bat that I didn't get into this movie from the start. I was actually rather disappointed until I stepped back and realized what a great achievement this was. Tobe Hooper made a wonderfully real and scary classic out of this movie. I thought it would be disgusting and graphic from all I heard about it. I dreaded watching it. Then, after it was over, I was shocked that so many critics had misled me with all that too-graphic-to-be-seen crap. There's hardly any blood seen in the film which, in my opinion, is a plus. Still, the sudden and unexpected jolts the film springs on the viewers are well placed. (And get me everytime.) Anyone who likes to be scared will enjoy this low-budget masterpiece.