Reviews

Man on the Moon is a great film, but one that could have been better. The opening sequence with Andy saying the movie is stupid and rolling the credits was incredible, but I wanted more. Instead it turns into a very good, funny but ultimately a very conventional biopic. I wanted 20 min. of the "Great Gatsby," I wanted half the theater to walk out and the other half to give a standing ovation at the end. Andy was someone who screwed with your mind but this movie, one that was supposed to give you a feel for who he was, didn't do that. I guess it's asking a lot for a studio movie to put the film out of frame during the scene about the v-hold on his TV special but it would have been great. Something along the lines of "Thirty-Two Short Films About Glenn Gould" but about Andy was what I guess I really wanted.

Sit back and hold on because from opening credits to the time you stagger out of the theater this movie doesn't stop. It is what MTV has been promising all these years but never really delivering, a non-stop trill ride that is altra-hip and altra cool.

Part music video part feature film, this movie is a must see.

It takes chances that most film makers couldn't or wouldn't take. It uses mixed media, both film and video. It uses still pictures to show that lives of people on the street with blazing speed. The camera moves so much it is a bit disorienting when it is still. It uses very non-linear story telling.

Overall it is a movie that succeeds at doing things differently and will in all likelihood be the genesis of a string of bad American rip-offs.

I was lucky enough to catch this film at a local film festival and I'm very glad I did. It is both warm and funny and in many ways much more real than most "coming of age" films you see. It was one of the few films I've seen where I walked out of the theater with the intention of telling everyone I knew to go and see it.

I expected it to not match to hype but I had no idea it would be this disappointing. For any other movie it would have been acceptable but this is Star Wars. First of all the thing was like watching a cartoon. The original Star Wars effects were much better, even with the primitive technology. Lucas has begun to rely too heavily on computers and digital magic and lost sight of the fact that maybe a guy in a costume would have been better. In the original trilogy when you saw a ship or a storm trooper it seemed somehow more real, not like this computer animated garbage that was thrown on the screen for the "Phantom Menace." But more importantly is the lack of any strong characters. Before you had a whole cast of interesting and full characters, now we are only left with computer enhanced cardboard cutouts. Before there was Han, the Princess, C3P0 ect. now we just have a Darth Vader look alike that has maybe 5 lines in the whole picture. Also gone is the clever and well thought out dialogue. In "Episode I" the closest they get to being clever is stealing lines from the original "Star Wars." And I won't even start with those amphibion people who were not only annoying but you couldn't understand a word they said. All in all it was simply eye candy, which may have been enough in any other film, but this is Star Wars.

This film has just about every teen movie cliche in the book.

-Geek turned cool. check -Cheezy ending. check -Sterotypical characters. check -A laughable moral dilemma. check -One cool teacher who really understands you. check

Oh, and if I see one more film that ends at a senior prom I think I may have to take my own life.

And let's not forget the bad writing. I mean I thought Drew was supposed to work for a major newspaper, but all she seems to be able to compose is trite sappy articles that no paper in the county would even think of publishing.

Some of the scenes in the film where beyond stupid. One scene shows Drew's "teacher" talking about his break-up with his girlfriend as they ride a ferris wheel. Now I don't know what high school was like for the rest of you but our teacher's love lives where usually not discussed at length with students.

One also needs to remember what a unbelievably bad actress Drew is. I actually caught myself laughing aloud during the films "serious" moments. Many times durring these moments I sat waiting for the punchline only to discover that there was none.

To put it simply save your money and your time this film is rotten to the core and a complete waste of time.

Mary Jane is one of those low budget movies that we are all supposed to love because it's a low budget movie, but that just doesn't fly. This is a film with almost no redeeming qualities. The camera work is bad, the lighting is bad, and most of the actors couldn't act their way out of a paper bag. It even lacks the one thing that sets most indie films apart and costs nothing, a good script. I have no doubts as to why this film is having a hard time getting distributed, and it has nothing to do with the film's controversial content. The fact of the matter is this movie is just plain bad.

It's really too bad that this film came out so early in the year because it should and could have been a real Oscar contender. "The Spanish Prisoner" is Mamet at his best. He writes and directs a stylish, intelligent, mystery thriller that is without peer. Mamet is able to craft a plot that is complex enough to be interesting but simple enough so that the audience never feels lost. He writes dialog that seems so real that you could see yourself saying it, you never feel like your watching someone say lines. And the acting is out standing. I haven't seen a good movie out of Steve Martin in years and here he is making it look easy in a very un-Steve Martin role. Every thing about this movie seems so right, from the music to the lighting, it's a joy to watch and one not to miss.

"Four Rooms" has got some high points. But it also has some very, very low points. The first third of the movie is almost unbearable. See, the film is split up between four stories and four directors, and the first two stories are awful. I mean they are bad to the point of fast-forwarding. But if you stick with it long enough you get to the parts directed by Tarantino and Rodriguez you'll be pleased, trust me. And while as a whole "Four Rooms" is average at best, the second half's sheer coolness more than makes up for the travesty that is the first half of the film.

"Clerks" is Kevin Smith's first film and, frankly, it shows. The acting is horrible and the cinematography is primitive. But this is a case in which dialog and a clever script saves a film almost single-handedly. It's full of clever situations and one-liners that stay with you well after the film is over. In the tradition of such films as "Slacker" it also provides an interesting glimpse into the lives and minds of the twenty-somethings of this world who have no ambition and no real desire to get any. Shot on 16mm film with a reported budget of $27,000 "Clerks" really is an everyman's masterpiece.

"Battleship" is the best example you will see of the montage editing used by the Russians in the 1920's. By using a series of simple images they where able to communicate complicated ideas to an uneducated audience. Now seen mostly in TV commercials montage editing has been very influencial in the US. "Battleship" is a must see for anyone interested in film history.