Reviews

14 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Jarhead (2005)
7/10
Pleasantly surprising
24 October 2005
I saw a promotional screening of the film, sponsored by my university. Following the screening was an audience Q&A with the author (and main character), Tony Swofford.

And it was no surprise that the very first question from the audience was, quite ambiguously, "Do you support the military?" When Swofford dismissed the question as too broad and complex to be answered with a simple yes or no, the inquirer followed up with, "Well, do you support the war?" Swofford dismissed this even more readily.

To me, this was perfectly representative of how the film handled its potential political implications.

As Troy says early on in the film, "To hell with politics. We're here now." And that's essentially how the movie went.

It bypasses the soapbox and simply tells you how it was, from the perspective of a single soldier. And while the opening boot camp scenes may seem like Full Metal Jacket Lite, the rest of the film is truly unique.

Sam Mendes directs with his usual brilliance, showing once again his affinity for bright, vivid color, even in the largely monochromatic desert.

Jake Gyllenhaal gives an excellent performance as Anthony Swofford, complemented by the able talents of Jamie Foxx and Peter Sarsgaard.

The film's only real flaw is that, like the war on which it was based, it's pretty slow, and not a lot really happens.

In the strictest sense, I would have a hard time even classifying this as a war film, and it's certainly not a deliberately political film.

But in its own way, it tells an intense, personal story. Beyond that, you're simply left to make your own judgments.

7/10
386 out of 485 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Disturbing, but incredibly well done
24 January 2004
There one was a director named Richard Kelly who made a little film called "Donnie Darko". If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it. But I was intrigued when I saw this film's premise, and heard comparisons to Kelly's film.

I was also interested to see if the great and overexposed comedian Ashton Kutcher pull off a dramatic role. I was not disappointed.

Kutcher gives an impressive turn as a disturbed college student who can inexplicably travel back in time to reshape his existence.

This film offers an interesting perspective into how events in our lives shape who we are. It demands that each member of the audience look into his own past to find the events that spawn the difference between the person you are, and the person you could be. It also makes you look at the effect you've had on others along the way.

It is not a happy tale; indeed, it is thoroughly disturbing at times. The ending, although only mildly unexpected, should leave the audience satisfied.

Amy Smart, Ethan Suplee, William Lee Scott, and Elden Henson similarly have impressive performances, sometimes being forced to play very different versions of themselves.

Not a film to perk you up, but certainly a satisfying experience, "The Butterfly Effect" gets an 8/10.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Love Actually (2003)
7/10
Well written, but loses a few points (minor spoilers)
9 November 2003
Warning: Spoilers
*Pros:

-Performances

-Good overall message

-Stories are individually well written

-Some sweet romantic moments

*Cons:

-Some stories are neglected and feel unresolved.

-Fairly full of itself.

-Brief political subplot

******************************************

From Richard Curtis, the cinematic genius who brought you "Bridget Jones' Diary", "Notting Hill", and "Bridget Jones' Diary", comes a film so perfect, so well done, and indeed so long awaited, that you'd have to be a completely heartless, uncultured arsehole to not enjoy it.

Of course, I don't really think that, but the filmmaker seemed to, given the overall tone of the trailer for this self-proclaimed "Ultimate Romantic Comedy"... It was because of this very pretentious tone that I approached this film with a bit of hostility; but really just increased expectations. To me, if they're going to tout their brilliance as a marketing tool for this film, they'd better live up to the higher standard they claim as their own.

The good news is, they mostly do. I mean, how can you dislike a film that announces that its purpose is to point out that love is actually all around you?

Sadly, a few different ways.

A brief subplot involving Grant's character and the President of the US offered some very unspecific but generally anti-American political rhetoric. Don't get me wrong here… I don't mind the stereotyping of Americans, since we dish that out at other countries all the time. Likewise, I can accept anti-American sentiment, as long as it's expressed in the form of a valid argument rather than vague generalization. In any case, I think the former, and not the latter, is the only of the two that has any place in a romantic comedy. It was in fact a scene of the stereotyping of Americans that was one of the most enjoyable scenes in the film, while the other scene seemed to be almost a deliberate sucker-punch for every American watching, followed by an immediate retreat by the person who dealt it. It was in poor taste, to say the least.

Beyond that… The musical score, while very pleasing to the ear, was a bit intrusive at times… The overall mood of certain scenes was apparently lacking, so the score tried to make up for it. Granted, it's a difficult line to place, but the score crossed it more than once.

Most of the stories worked very well. Unfortunately, as a consequence of such a multi-threaded narrative, some of them felt unresolved at the film's end. The pacing was good overall, although there were times in which a story would be in limbo for a bit too long, leaving the audience wondering if the characters decided to take an early holiday (to borrow a British expression).

But clearly, this is also a difficult line to measure, and for the most part, Curtis pulls it off. And in the end, in spite of its flaws, he leaves us with a delightful film to remember for this season.

6/10
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Scary Movie 3 (2003)
6/10
Most of the gags worked; a few didn't.
25 October 2003
Pros:

-several very well constructed gags

-a dash or two of intelligent humor

-immensely better than #2

Cons:

-slight overuse of slapstick

-the occasional joke falls flat

Only in a film like this would you find a parody of a beer commercial... Perhaps it was an homage to the "Wazzup" segment in the first film.

Segment really is the key word; this film is essentially like an episode of "Family Guy", in that each scene really serves as an elaborate setup for a series of gags, and not much concern is given to advancing the plot. This segmented feel works famously in a film which is clearly not meant in the least to be taken seriously, although some jokes, such as the Simon Cowell cameo, seemed forced.

While a few gags seemed to come straight out of the Farrelly Brothers handbook of moviemaking, the film tries to stay original with its parodies (if such a thing is possible). Sheen and Faris clearly have a great time in their respective roles.

A few running gags clearly marked this as a David Zucker film, particularly the frequent use of slapstick humor. While this seems unnecessarily repetitive at first, it becomes essentially a running gag as one character is repeatedly singled out for each hit.

A lot of gags worked; some didn't. I suppose it's to be expected with a film like this. But the film wasn't overshadowed by the numerous woeful comedic leaps of its predecessor during which the audience was expected to be laughing. For the most part this time around, I actually was laughing. Hopefully the Wayans Brothers learned a thing or two from the sidelines.

6.5/10
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Adaptation. (2002)
8/10
One of those films you don't fully understand until hours later
23 October 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Pros:

-Performances

-Seamless interaction between the two Cage characters

-Very original story

Cons:

-A little hard to follow

__________________________________________________________________

(minor spoilers within) The story follows the struggle of Charlie Kaufman (played by Nicolas Cage, in his best performance ever) as he struggles to adapt real-life novel "The Orchid Thief", by real-life author Susan Orlean, into a screenplay. As the very abstract and fragmented, yet strangely well-flowing plot goes on, we begin to see that he is, in fact, writing the screenplay for the film we're seeing right now. Confused?

Well, if you are, you do get over it, if not during the film, afterward, when you manage to piece together what you've just seen. While things do take a turn for the bizarre as the story goes on, this ultimately works to the film's credit, as it just serves to build further on the theme behind Charlie's struggle: How do you tell a story in which nothing changes, nothing is resolved, and no one learns anything?

Is this one of those stories? Certainly not. The theme, if a tad elusive, is there, and it is this theme that makes this such an excellent film.

8/10
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good flick
11 October 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Pros: -Black and Cusack -the kids -some decent laughs

Cons: -a bit preachy -some jokes run themselves into the ground

(minor spoilers ahead) "Sister Act 2". That's what came to mind when I saw the trailer for this movie. The "posing as a teacher to make the music program cool again" story was sadly butchered by this abortion of a movie. But, you take basically the same story, add the infinitely funnier Jack Black, some decent (and shockingly talented) musical youngsters, along with the lovely and talented Joan Cusack as the principal with the stick up her butt with a heart of gold, and you have a pretty decent flick. While not too plot-centric, this ultimately works to the film's credit. The film's only fault is that certain jokes (an effeminate kid continuously badmouthing Black's "style" and themes ("sticking it to the man") recur so much they sadly run themselves into the ground.

Despite a few flaws, it's not about the great... It's about good music, good laughs, "and a kickass show"

Just for kicks, here's the grade anyway: 7/10
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Terrible execution of what sounded like an interesting idea
22 September 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Review of `Cold Creek Manor' *minor spoilers within*

Pros:

-a few decent scares

-Quaid

_____________________________________________________________________

Cons:

-dull and predictable

-Dorff and Stone

-ending

_____________________________________________________________________

But when they moved in… They didn't know. EVIL LURKED WITHIN!

Sadly, the trailer turned out to be far more interesting than the film itself. While the concept of a city slicker moving out to the country and becoming engrossed in a good old fashioned small town mystery has been done to death, occasionally we'll see a decent installment in the genre. This is not one of them. The pace is slow, and the eventual solution to the so-called mystery is so frequently eluded to that it is hardly a surprise when we finally see it.

Besides one surprisingly suspenseful scene involving snakes, and a few other decent scares, Quaid's performance was the only thing that saved this film from being a total loss. Dorff gives an okay turn as the very one-dimensional previous owner, but his bad performance was probably just one of the many victims of the woeful script, while Stone's plays her character as flat as a board.

This film was well marketed, almost to the point of overkill (Ever count how many times they say `Cold Creek Manor' in the trailer?), but ultimately was poorly executed.

3/10
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A Pirate's Life For Me...
13 July 2003
When I first heard this film touted as "the most violent Disney film ever made", I wasn't quite certain what to expect. The trailers seemed to combine the adult appeal of such big names as producer Jerry Bruckheimer and director Gore Verbinski with the childish whimsy of an extended, "Spy Kids 2"-esque title and the always kid-friendly Disney logo. While I expected a decent popcorn flick, I was still worried this would simply be a mutinous attempt to make a grab for the collective treasure of the preteen through adult market.

Interestingly enough, it was a skilled combination of these seemingly mutually exclusive elements that made this film work. For a film so reliant on visual effects, care was taken that they not be the focus of the film. A decent (if simplistic) kidnapping plot expands to an epic tale of cursed pirates. A surprising amount of Disney humor is woven with non-stop action sequences and dazzling CG effects. The pirate-to-skeleton transitions are done masterfully, proving this yet another beautifully laid notch on the belt of ILM.

Orlando Bloom plays his underwritten part decently, despite clearly expending less effort than his co-star Johnny Depp as the flamboyant Captain Jack Sparrow. Geoffrey Rush could not be more compelling as the treacherous Captain Barbossa, and Kiera Knightley shines in a mildly stereotypical damsel-in-distress-turned-heroine role.

Verbinski's direction continues to impress. This skillful director of "The Ring" is just beginning what will hopefully be an illustrious career.

8/10
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Overly episodic and poorly conceived
3 July 2003
Warning: Spoilers
(minor spoilers ahead) Why, oh why, could they not remember the spirit of the first? As sequels go, this one reminds me of Mission: Impossible 2. In the first M:I flick, they conceived a poignant story of IMF agents working together toward a common covert goal of some kind. In the sequel, it was Tom Cruise as a one-man killing machine. He didn't need any help, so it wasn't a Mission Impossible story at all. It was a shaky attempt at a Bond knockoff.

The appeal of the first "Charlie's Angels" flick was in its complete lack of attempts to take itself seriously. The Angels' world seemed to be a fanciful place, full of whimsy and fantastical things; almost a fairy tale. It was this ever-present "giddiness" that made the first film so enjoyable. It was clear from all three stars' performances that they were having a great time making the film. While this attitude, as well as the film's fanciful spirit, was still somewhat present in the sequel, the story simply did not flow quite as well.

From each over-the-top action scene to the next, there seemed to be little or no connection. The overly episodic feel left the audience wondering if they should expect a commercial break before the next location. The FX were quite impressive, although some scenes; particularly a dirt bike race/shootout, felt so fake that I wondered where my game controller was so I could pause the movie and check how many lives the Angels had left.

Bernie Mac, while typically an amusing addition (such as in `Ocean's 11'), was sadly reduced to just a few one-liners in this film. While it's debatable whether Bill Murray would've done any better (as he did in the first film) within the parameters of this story, let's just say he couldn't do any worse.

Demi Moore was impressive, but overly serious, and Crispin Glover was wasted in just a few confusing appearances.

McG would get along quite nicely with Rob Cohen, but will hopefully prove himself more versatile in the future.

For once, a film is faulted by not being nearly campy enough. As much as I enjoyed the first film, It's time for this franchise to slip away quietly, rather than with a loud crash when Charlie's Angels 3 comes out.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Phone Booth (2002)
8/10
Slick direction and great performances
6 April 2003
Warning: Spoilers
(minor spoilers within) The screen debut of this relatively simple concept, delayed first by a lack of notoriety on the part of its main stars, and again by the Beltway sniper shootings, probably will leave a lot of 2nd year film students wondering "Why didn't I come up with something like this?"

While the film derives the main idea of its plot from the 1996 indie film "End of the Line", Schumacher's direction (reminiscent of TV's '24', with real-time, split-screen shots, as well as numerous looks through the sniper's point of view, complete with crosshairs) gives a very entertaining cinematographical look to what is, with virtually no exception, a single-scene piece.

Farrell delivers the latest of a long line of excellent performances (along with the latest of his seemingly endless bag of accents). His performance only wavers once or twice, particularly late in the movie during a rather emotionally overdone monologue scene.

Sutherland's voiced character ends up as something of a vigilante, although his motives aren't made wholly clear as we're made to believe that he was almost justified in his actions. While this unresolved and inadequately explored "morality play" aspect of the film is what may prevent it from becoming a true classic, the film was still quite well done as a thrilling piece.

8 out of 10
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Wow... Just one or two flaws though.
18 December 2002
Warning: Spoilers
(minor spoilers herein) Having read the series multiple times, I thought the transition to screen was done fairly smoothly for both of the films so far. Naturally some elements were changed for better storytelling, but the overall epic seemed untouched. As for the second chapter in the trilogy, let me say this: The entire last hour is probably one of the most well done battle sequences I have ever seen.

That having been said, here was the only problem. Remember the original Star Wars trilogy, where three or four ministories would be going on at once, and every five minutes or so the scene would change to give us an update about what was happening with each one? Well, Jackson tries to duplicate this, with this undeniable problem: When Lucas cut between scenes, each one maintained roughly the same intensity level at any given time, so consequently the cuts didn't detract from the drama. In this case, particularly as Merry and Pippin's story goes, the intensity doesn't reach a sufficient level for "good cuts" until near the end. In the meantime, the dramatic battle sequence just seems prone to frequent interruptions, leaving the audience wondering... Okay... When do we get back to Helm's Deep?

Despite this, it all tied up wonderfully. The ending, which was altered slightly from the original book, seems to add to the suspense they try to build for "Return of the King", so it works well.

Definitely one of the more surprising standout characters is Gollum. Ever since the days of Jarjar Binks, we've all been dreading the next computergenerated monstrosity that would grace our screens. While Gollum does get a tremendously increased number of lines from the previous movie, I'd have to say I was never even once annoyed by him. In fact, a rather schizophrenic exchange between himself... and himself... Is definitely one of the funnier moments in the film. Also, his computer generated movements and look is virtually flawless. Andy Serkis has proven to be a very versatile actor both in the motion capture that was used to create the character, and in the very memorable voice to go with it. I would not be at all surprised if this entirely "fake" character sets a new precedent by becoming the first of his kind to win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. Really... He was THAT believable.

So as they said of "Empire", it was far more expansive than the original, and definitely worth your time. Enjoy the show.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
"Jolly good fun..."
21 October 2002
When I saw this movie, I had actually only seen the show twice. I joined a group of friends who told me that Steve "Red Green" Smith would be there at the theater to personally introduce the movie. So there I went... Even walked away with an autographed roll of duct tape.

Going into the movie, I didn't really know what to expect. The Red Green Show, while ingenious in its own way, would need the potential for some serious story expansion for the film to succeed. As Steve put it, "Decide how you feel about this movie before you see it."

This bit of comic relief not withstanding, this film was a very enjoyable buddy-picture. The plot is fairly standard fare, with the wealthy, megalomaniacal nemesis with 'mommy' issues who's looking to remove the lodge to develop the land, and the residents of said lodge making a last-ditch move to save it.

Harold... Was quite annoying. And in that aspect, the actor is no doubt quite talented. If you don't like the antics of an Urkel-type... Bring some earplugs.

Lots of good fun, if you don't need all-too serious of a plot. Now where's that duct tape...
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Much better than Episode I
16 May 2002
Warning: Spoilers
***Warning: Minor/Moderate Spoilers*** The underlying problem with reviewing any major "franchise" movie such as Star Wars is you'll always have two kinds of reviewers. Some will be absolute, die-hard fans, and they will overlook any and all flaws in the movie. And others will play the devil's advocate, and dog the movie for flaws that they would otherwise overlook in any other summer action movie.

All that not withstanding, I must say I was much more impressed with Act 2 of this line of Star Wars prequels than the first one. Performances varied across the board this time... Natalie Portmann (Padmé Amidala) and Hayden Christensen (Anakin Skywalker) both played quite well independently, but the two have virtually no on-screen chemistry. Their relationship seems driven not so much by love, but by the necessity therein to retain the continuity with characters in Episodes 4, 5, and 6. (such as their kids, Luke and Leia)

The student-turned-master Obi-Wan Kenobi is probably one of the better performances by Ewan McGregor, being able to portray his character with a much more serious air than the first movie. (to Anakin: "I have a feeling you're going to be the death of me")

Christopher Lee, notable for doing an awesome job as Saruman in Lord of the Rings, once again delivers a decent performance as the villain Jedi, Count Dooku. (And a duel between him and the now-butt-kicking Yoda had the whole auditorium cheering)

As for the action scenes, this movie was quite mind-blowing. It seemed a lot of times as if the game was seeing how many special effects could be displayed on-screen at a given time. And a "Gladiator"-style duel-turned-battle toward the end will prove quite entertaining and memorable.

Enjoy the film, and may the Force be with you

-Juansmith
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
An excellent "trimdown" of the original
28 January 2002
Warning: Spoilers
(warning: Minor spoilers ahead) Being a 4th year French student, I had the opportunity to watch the 8 hour long French version of this movie... Needless to say, there were quite a few plot elements in the original which could not be included in this 2 hour Hollywood rendition. To be completely honest, based upon the TV ads I saw, I thought this movie would be a complete butchering of the plot of the original. Upon seeing this film, I was quite impressed with how well the plot had been condensed. The prison tunneling breakout scenes, which have previously been portrayed in an arduous and somewhat *cough* boring manner in previous renditions, were very well done. (such as the part when the mans head came up through the floor of his cell) Richard Harris seems to be doing quite well now in the "bearded old man" parts. He couldn't have been better casted for the part of Dumbeldorf (Sorry Harry Potter fans... I'm sure I butchered the spelling), and he did quite well as Dantes' mentor in this film. Guy Pearce played well in a fairly typical 'bad guy' role. It was curious how the ending was altered to be less anti-climactic than the original. I won't get into specifics here, but the added 'happy ending' seemed to go well with the pace of the story. Probably my only complaint was the poor casting of relative newcomer to the big screen Dagmara Dominczyk as Mercedes. Her placement in this film seemed to give the otherwise serious role a "stand around and look pretty" motif that doesn't really belong in a literary-based film. All-in-all, not a bad way to spend 2 hours.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed