Reviews

3 Reviews
Sort by:
Nowhere (1997)
Absolutely awful
15 April 2001
This film has got to be the most directionless mess I have ever seen. Sorry to burst the bubbles of those lucky few who actually enjoyed this movie, proclaiming that it wasn't meant to be taken seriously. It's painfully obvious that the director is desperately *trying* to convey some sort of dire message about the wasteland encountered by today's youth. That's a pretty serious message and every scene *tries* to make it clear, TRYING being the operative word. But without a cohesive plot, without rational portrayal, without sympathetic characters, without any logic whatsoever, this film goes nowhere fast.

The problem of this film can be summed up in one question: Why should we care? Why should we care about Dark and co.? Why should we care about their problems? Why should we care about the sex and violence they encounter? Are we supposed to relate to this? The film doesn't give us a reason to care. And while the point of the film MAY have been just this -- to show a bunch of alienated kids without a reason to care about the world -- the directors forgot that they had to give the audience a reason to care about the message they're trying to give. Rational thought eludes every scene in this movie. Oh yes, there's a lot of clever symbolism and allusions, but they're like little islands in a sea of garbage. The movie just tries too hard to shock the audience a la Andy Warhol and it simply falls flat without ever accomplishing anything.

The acting is awful. The characters are supposed to be exaggerated but all we see are actors TRYING to play exaggerated characters. And James Duval's sopoforic doesn't look like it's on purpose, either. The guy just cannot act. A future Keanu Reeves, I'm sure. The only interesting performance was that of John Ritter. His character was about the only good thing in this movie that actually made sense from an artistic perspective. That and the color imagery & the music found throughout the movie. Although, the use of Stacy Q's "Two of Hearts" is odd. I thought this movie was about teens in the 90's, not the 80's. But other than that, the music did accompany the scenes appropriately...something to be appreciated in an otherwise dismal film.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Popular (1999–2001)
Look beyond the surface
13 December 2000
"Popular" has to be one of the most clever series to be developed in recent years. To those who think it's an unrealistic depiction life, you need to look deeper. I highly doubt anyone in high school ever depended on constant popularity polls to the degree that the people on this show do, or had "ghettofabulous" limousines, or had former prom queens sabotage the prom votes, etc. This show exaggerates those petty aspects of high school life in order to expose them for what they are: petty! It exaggerates popularity contests, it exaggerates materialism. In doing so, one realizes how silly those things were. It's brilliant. Not to mention that the situations are well-written, the dialogue is crisp and fresh, and the acting is perfect. But aside from the exaggeration and the camp, the show also touches on some serious aspects with a refreshing sincerity that comes off much more realistic than on other, more "serious" shows. This is definitely not a teen series. It is an adult series dealing with teenage situations.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Obviously misunderstood
26 September 1999
Someone said that this movie was too cerebral for horror fans who live for drivel like "From Dusk 'Till Dawn", and too much of a horror movie for people who look (or at least pretend to look) for meaning in movies -- pseudo-intellectuals. That person couldn't have been more correct. I'm not a horror fan, I'm not an Anne Rice fan...I'm not even fond of Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, and Antonio Banderas. But Interview With a Vampire was a movie that excelled my expectations.

I refused to see this film for 3 years because I believed it would be what I perceived it to be: glitzy Hollywood garbage geared toward adolescent girls with posters of the 3 main actors all over their walls. I finally broke down and rented it, and I was astonished by the incredible performances delivered, the thrilling dialogue and the way it was delivered by the actors, the scenery, the plot, the score...everything. I never thought that Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise could act, but their performances made their unbelievable characters a reality. However, the true star of the film was Kirsten Dunst. At 12 years old, this girl was able to hold her own against her co-stars, and often stole the scene (particularly the incident in which Claudia tries to cut her hair and subsequently Lestat discovers the corpse in her bed.)

You don't want to look for the meaning of life in this movie. It's a story. The plot is basically the history of a vampire's life, and I don't understand why people are compelled to trash a movie because of its simplicity. Look at the title. That's all it is, and if you expect more you're setting yourself up for disappointment. It's not the deepest of movies, that's why it should be enjoyed for the intense dialogue and the great production that went into it. Others trash the movie because of its homoerotic undertones. This aspect is so fleeting that it's ridiculous to dwell on it, and if you dwell on such an insignificant aspect of the movie then you were obviously looking for something to bother you. One additional thing: to even suggest that the violence in this film could be responsible for incidents such as the Columbine High School killings is beyond moronic.

This isn't the greatest movie that has ever been made, it's certainly not a complex analysis of life, or a parable with a moral dictating the enjoyment of life. It's a brilliantly produced gothic tale of a vampire, nothing more and nothing less. In respect to the book, I've never read it and I don't particularly care to read it. But for all of you who have been complaining about the movie not living up to the novel, here's a clue that might prove useful in the future: the book is ALWAYS better than the film. Don't waste your time complaining about something that is understood.
283 out of 342 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this