Wow. This movie is bad on every level. There *are* some funny lines, but they feel like they were just stuck into the script. It's a total disaster from start to finish. It was painful to watch R Lee Ermery embarrass himself in this piece of garbage.
Reviews
14 Reviews
The Opportunists
(1999)
Visually OK but -BORING-!!!
22 September 2000
The overwhelming fact is that this movie is slow-paced, has almost no conflict, and feels a lot longer than it is.
The good points : Cyndi Lauper and Peter MacDonald. They each deliver a good performance and are quite watchable.
The bad points : not much happens in this movie! The problems that Walken's character faces are fairly boring and the director doesn't help out by maintaining a languid pace the entire time. There was absolutely no suspense in this film.
The script was not cohesive. There are many boring secondary characters who come and go, and the whole thing feels like an overly long TV episode. There wasn't much humour. Some of the dramatic scenes were very well done, such as Lauper telling Walken to get out, but others were quite bad.
I did like quite a few of the shots in the movie. I always admire a director who knows how to shoot cars, and the opening shots do a great job showing off a nice Buick Riviera. I also liked a few of the shots of Vic's van, and there's an "orbit" shot of Peter MacDonald later on that was pretty good.
Overall however I would not watch this again nor reccomend that anyone else see it.
The good points : Cyndi Lauper and Peter MacDonald. They each deliver a good performance and are quite watchable.
The bad points : not much happens in this movie! The problems that Walken's character faces are fairly boring and the director doesn't help out by maintaining a languid pace the entire time. There was absolutely no suspense in this film.
The script was not cohesive. There are many boring secondary characters who come and go, and the whole thing feels like an overly long TV episode. There wasn't much humour. Some of the dramatic scenes were very well done, such as Lauper telling Walken to get out, but others were quite bad.
I did like quite a few of the shots in the movie. I always admire a director who knows how to shoot cars, and the opening shots do a great job showing off a nice Buick Riviera. I also liked a few of the shots of Vic's van, and there's an "orbit" shot of Peter MacDonald later on that was pretty good.
Overall however I would not watch this again nor reccomend that anyone else see it.
East Is East
(1999)
Masterwork of comedy & tragedy as 2 sides of one coin.
26 August 2000
I went into this totally clean - I happened to walk past a theatre that shows foreign films once in a while, all the domestic releases looked horrible, so we took a chance on this.
I haven't seen such a hilarious film in years. I think that many people were disappointed or offended by the juxtaposition of low comedy and some truly violent scenes and situations, but I think that if you kept a totally open mind and allowed the film to carry you on an emotional wave, you could see that it is tragic and comic at the same time, neither one being more valid than the other.
This was a real milestone film for me. I loved it!
I haven't seen such a hilarious film in years. I think that many people were disappointed or offended by the juxtaposition of low comedy and some truly violent scenes and situations, but I think that if you kept a totally open mind and allowed the film to carry you on an emotional wave, you could see that it is tragic and comic at the same time, neither one being more valid than the other.
This was a real milestone film for me. I loved it!
Hollow Man
(2000)
Waste of great effects, and Adam Rifkin should sue!!!
10 August 2000
The invisibility effects get a 9. Even when they fall down a little, they're still impressive.
The rest of the movie gets a 3... the characters are all pretty well cliche (although I did like the vet character). Kevin Bacon plays a BAD GUY - the sort who doesn't need any motivation to go crazy. The movie makes some attempt to imply that invisibility affects the brain and makes creatures aggressive, but Bacon's character doesn't do anything while invisible that he wouldn't have done while visible, if he could get away with it.
They just don't do very much in this movie. All the action could have taken place in an hour-long TV episode, and that's what it feels like. The action is confined to few locations without having any atmosphere (as compared to Alien, which was similarly confined but that added to the tension).
Most importantly, this movie cannot be seen except in the context of Adam Rifkin's (as Rif Coogan) "Invisible Maniac". If you haven't seen it, look it up now! It is also about a scientist who goes crazy after injecting an invisibility serum, and in fact the opening voyeuristic shots of Hollow Man are very similar to the opening of Invisible Maniac. Rifkin's movie is a T&A comedy, but it's much more enjoyable than Hollow Man.
The rest of the movie gets a 3... the characters are all pretty well cliche (although I did like the vet character). Kevin Bacon plays a BAD GUY - the sort who doesn't need any motivation to go crazy. The movie makes some attempt to imply that invisibility affects the brain and makes creatures aggressive, but Bacon's character doesn't do anything while invisible that he wouldn't have done while visible, if he could get away with it.
They just don't do very much in this movie. All the action could have taken place in an hour-long TV episode, and that's what it feels like. The action is confined to few locations without having any atmosphere (as compared to Alien, which was similarly confined but that added to the tension).
Most importantly, this movie cannot be seen except in the context of Adam Rifkin's (as Rif Coogan) "Invisible Maniac". If you haven't seen it, look it up now! It is also about a scientist who goes crazy after injecting an invisibility serum, and in fact the opening voyeuristic shots of Hollow Man are very similar to the opening of Invisible Maniac. Rifkin's movie is a T&A comedy, but it's much more enjoyable than Hollow Man.
Titan A.E.
(2000)
9 for animation, 6 for story.
7 July 2000
See this before it goes - there won't be many American animated movies of this calibre. The animation is spectacular - really fantastic colour, beautiful locations and objects, and great effects. I also thought the framing and "direction" of the characters was quite good and very sophisticated compared to many animated films.
Too often animation is directed too tightly - the main action or character completely dominates the scene. Titan AE lets the "camera" hang back a bit and take in peripheral activity, adding greatly to the immersiveness and illusion. When it needs to, it does get in close.
Other than a couple rough-looking interior shots, the animation is flawless.
I didn't think that much of the story, however. It didn't matter since I was there to see the animation, and the plot was adequete to keep the movie going. Still, there is almost no backstory, no explanation of most of the major plot devices, and it seems like some scenes are missing in the middle of the movie (involving Corso & company meeting up with Akima).
Too often animation is directed too tightly - the main action or character completely dominates the scene. Titan AE lets the "camera" hang back a bit and take in peripheral activity, adding greatly to the immersiveness and illusion. When it needs to, it does get in close.
Other than a couple rough-looking interior shots, the animation is flawless.
I didn't think that much of the story, however. It didn't matter since I was there to see the animation, and the plot was adequete to keep the movie going. Still, there is almost no backstory, no explanation of most of the major plot devices, and it seems like some scenes are missing in the middle of the movie (involving Corso & company meeting up with Akima).
Never on Tuesday
(1988)
Another Rifkin classic!
31 March 2000
This movie doesn't feature many Rifkin signatures - you won't see many of the classic shots so prominent in "Invisible Maniac" or "Detroit Rock City", but there are a couple 'fantasy" sequences that are definite Rifkin shots.
Beyond the Adam Rifkin appeal, the movie wasn't that bad. In fact, the main detraction is the cameos. There are three main ones and they are so obviously written in just to have a cameo that it ruins the flow of the movie. Charlie Sheen's is great, Nicolas Cage's is OK (although his appearance is worth the price of the movie).
The whole feel of the movie has that 80's sexuality to it - the would-be sexual adventurers discovering the true meaning of relationships.
It looks good (considering there's only one location in the whole film) and the soundtrack is not bad. It's an enjoyable bit of 80's cinema that's great for watching while you dust your room or something.
And it's a must for the Rifkin fan!
Beyond the Adam Rifkin appeal, the movie wasn't that bad. In fact, the main detraction is the cameos. There are three main ones and they are so obviously written in just to have a cameo that it ruins the flow of the movie. Charlie Sheen's is great, Nicolas Cage's is OK (although his appearance is worth the price of the movie).
The whole feel of the movie has that 80's sexuality to it - the would-be sexual adventurers discovering the true meaning of relationships.
It looks good (considering there's only one location in the whole film) and the soundtrack is not bad. It's an enjoyable bit of 80's cinema that's great for watching while you dust your room or something.
And it's a must for the Rifkin fan!
In Too Deep
(1999)
Mediocre film with a lot of idle talent.
16 March 2000
Someday this will be the sort of movie that gets rented because Omar Epps is a big star and his fans didn't see this when it was released.
There wasn't much WRONG with the movie, but there wasn't much to praise either. I found it fairly slow and tedious at parts, and it never really built much tension around going undercover. I compared it unfavorably to Reservoir Dogs it that aspect.
I'm a big fan of Stanley Tucci, but he hasn't got much to work with here. That goes double for Pam Grier - her "character" isn't much more than a target for a few of Omar's attacks after he goes "too deep".
There wasn't much WRONG with the movie, but there wasn't much to praise either. I found it fairly slow and tedious at parts, and it never really built much tension around going undercover. I compared it unfavorably to Reservoir Dogs it that aspect.
I'm a big fan of Stanley Tucci, but he hasn't got much to work with here. That goes double for Pam Grier - her "character" isn't much more than a target for a few of Omar's attacks after he goes "too deep".
Mission to Mars
(2000)
A servicable film - not the disaster the critics describe.
13 March 2000
I went to Mission to Mars expecting little. I like Don Cheadle's work, and Tim Robbins usually puts in a good effort. Beyond that I was still reeling from Pitch Black and figured that at least "Mission" couldn't possibly be worse.
I was pleasantly suprised by the movie! It is fairly derivative, there are a lot of long-winded conversations and inconsistent science, and the secondary characters are just drones, but the film comes together fairly well.
It's in the category of science fiction that includes movies like Contact and (of course) 2001, and it does an OK job of capturing the wonder of exploration and discovery. I would describe it as being the "worst of the best". It's a pale shadow of 2001, for instance, but it beats "Starship Troopers" any day.
Well worth seeing for the effects, in any case.
I was pleasantly suprised by the movie! It is fairly derivative, there are a lot of long-winded conversations and inconsistent science, and the secondary characters are just drones, but the film comes together fairly well.
It's in the category of science fiction that includes movies like Contact and (of course) 2001, and it does an OK job of capturing the wonder of exploration and discovery. I would describe it as being the "worst of the best". It's a pale shadow of 2001, for instance, but it beats "Starship Troopers" any day.
Well worth seeing for the effects, in any case.
Pitch Black
(2000)
A real disappointment
8 March 2000
I went to see this after hearing it mentioned as an equal to Alien and Blade Runner. I left considering it an equal to the majority of poorly written science fiction movies.
There were some nice shots and the colour filter effects are quite nice. Visually I thought the movie was average overall but certain shots had the promise of better things in the director's future.
The script is terrible, however. The "science" of the movie is laughable - it lost me early on when the WINDSHIELD breaks while in an uncontrolled descent through the atmosphere, and the pilot just sits there and shields her eyes. I don't think anyone gave any thought to the development of the creatures or their ecology - comparing this to Alien is an insult.
Vin Diesel was not bad, but if I hadn't seen him do some actual acting in Boiler Room I wouldn't have thought him anything special.
There were some nice shots and the colour filter effects are quite nice. Visually I thought the movie was average overall but certain shots had the promise of better things in the director's future.
The script is terrible, however. The "science" of the movie is laughable - it lost me early on when the WINDSHIELD breaks while in an uncontrolled descent through the atmosphere, and the pilot just sits there and shields her eyes. I don't think anyone gave any thought to the development of the creatures or their ecology - comparing this to Alien is an insult.
Vin Diesel was not bad, but if I hadn't seen him do some actual acting in Boiler Room I wouldn't have thought him anything special.
Sleepy Hollow
(1999)
Good but not great.
21 November 1999
A beautiful film, but the script could have been better.
Tim fills the screen with what we expect from him - lush shots and great atmosphere. I loved the look of the movie, and up until the plot started to unravel it's well above average.
Unfortunately the shot in the previews of the witch lurching towards the screen foreshadows some of the negative elements which crept into this film and spoiled a lot of the atmosphere in the end.
Tim fills the screen with what we expect from him - lush shots and great atmosphere. I loved the look of the movie, and up until the plot started to unravel it's well above average.
Unfortunately the shot in the previews of the witch lurching towards the screen foreshadows some of the negative elements which crept into this film and spoiled a lot of the atmosphere in the end.
A clumsy, disappointing film.
15 November 1999
This movie falls flat on nearly every level. The main problem is in the screenplay - dull dialogue, sloppy pacing, bad scene transitions, disjointed comedy and drama segments and an overall sense of an unfinished script drag the movie down below the merely mediocre film it could have been.
The acting ranges from awful to passable. Other than the Dauphin, the queen, Joan herself and Joan's "conscience", there aren't any characters worth mentioning, so the poor acting isn't that noticeable. It's the hysterics of Joan that will make you cringe, and John Malkovich lurches around with a slackjawed air of surprise through the entire proceeding. Faye Dunaway and Dustin Hoffman are OK, but the roles are far below both of them.
Besson chooses to show us this mangled epic in mostly closeup shots. There's no sense of grand scale when almost every scene is filmed so tightly.
Add to these flaws lots of cliches and needless decapitations. There's also a pretty disgusting rape scene (probably meant as a BIG IMPORTANT CHARACTER BUILDING MOMENT, but it just comes across as distaseful. Compare to the rape scene in American History X and see how it's done right.)
By the end of hour two you'll be praying for the stake yourself.
The acting ranges from awful to passable. Other than the Dauphin, the queen, Joan herself and Joan's "conscience", there aren't any characters worth mentioning, so the poor acting isn't that noticeable. It's the hysterics of Joan that will make you cringe, and John Malkovich lurches around with a slackjawed air of surprise through the entire proceeding. Faye Dunaway and Dustin Hoffman are OK, but the roles are far below both of them.
Besson chooses to show us this mangled epic in mostly closeup shots. There's no sense of grand scale when almost every scene is filmed so tightly.
Add to these flaws lots of cliches and needless decapitations. There's also a pretty disgusting rape scene (probably meant as a BIG IMPORTANT CHARACTER BUILDING MOMENT, but it just comes across as distaseful. Compare to the rape scene in American History X and see how it's done right.)
By the end of hour two you'll be praying for the stake yourself.
Detroit Rock City
(1999)
Another fine Rifkin film.
27 August 1999
Detroit Rock City really exceeded my expectations. There's some great scenes in this film and they come together in a suprisingly cohesive way. The script was actually very funny - once the movie gets past an initial string of physical comedy bits that the actor can't carry that well (and shouldn't be expected to) there are some very funny lines and situations.
Special mention has to go to the soundtrack - most of the songs in the movie aren't on the disc (there must be 45 songs in the film).
Overall I thought it was a great summer movie, and I noticed a lot of Adam Rifkin/Rif Coogan signatures in the direction which added to the hilarity. If you liked this, be sure to check out The Invisible Maniac, which is in the same vein of humour (although in much worse taste in some ways).
Special mention has to go to the soundtrack - most of the songs in the movie aren't on the disc (there must be 45 songs in the film).
Overall I thought it was a great summer movie, and I noticed a lot of Adam Rifkin/Rif Coogan signatures in the direction which added to the hilarity. If you liked this, be sure to check out The Invisible Maniac, which is in the same vein of humour (although in much worse taste in some ways).
Eyes Wide Shut
(1999)
Like all Kubrick, more than the sum of its parts.
17 July 1999
I admire the work of Stanley Kubrick very much. All his films remain in my mind with a vitality far beyond most of the other work I see, even though the details of the films are often boring or inscrutable.
Eyes Wide Shut is no exception - there were many times in the movie where I could find no meaning or interest in an individual moment, but the overall experience is a lingering one with a deep impact - maybe Kubrick works the magic of making the spectator really _feel_ the characters turmoil and inner struggles by including so much of the mundane and seemingly unrelated incidents of "real life".
A fine conclusion to an excellent career.
p.s., being in Canada I had to put up with the "edited" version, which was certainly not subtle in its censorship. Oddly enough the couple beside me walked out from boredom, not sexual squeamishness. Should have digitally added some gunfights.
Eyes Wide Shut is no exception - there were many times in the movie where I could find no meaning or interest in an individual moment, but the overall experience is a lingering one with a deep impact - maybe Kubrick works the magic of making the spectator really _feel_ the characters turmoil and inner struggles by including so much of the mundane and seemingly unrelated incidents of "real life".
A fine conclusion to an excellent career.
p.s., being in Canada I had to put up with the "edited" version, which was certainly not subtle in its censorship. Oddly enough the couple beside me walked out from boredom, not sexual squeamishness. Should have digitally added some gunfights.
The Invisible Maniac
(1990)
Why it isn't that bad!
16 September 1998
This is a bad movie in the traditional sense, but taken for what it is meant to be it is quite good. Very funny and well made, although there are a few death scenes that are in bad taste, what with jiggling breasts as a girl suffocates and so on.
Tell Your Friends