Pelagia Reviews

Full House (1987–1995)

The Stamos Launching Pad that never was...

[2 April 2004]

Full House clearly belonged to John Stamos.

Stamos didn't get first in line for the opening credits just for his looks. Jesse was the center of the show, the guy that made the chemistry happen and brought everyone together.

Stamos is one of those rare all-around talents who can do just about everything and look good doing it. Sadly, Stamos never really got anywhere in show business. The man is not a complete failure, he married a supermodel and I'm sure lives comfortably, but twenty years from now people will look back and think, Stamos? Um, you mean Uncle Jesse, from Full House?

When you think about it, no one from the show ever really moved on to greater things*, but Stamos, if anyone, should have been the one to have his career skyrocket after the show ended.

Jesse's marriage to Rebecca should have signaled a new direction for the show, in the form of a spin-off series or at least the departure of Stamos for the greener pastures of movies and/or record deals. The producers must have realized that the show would fall apart without Stamos and must have thrown him a few bucks more into his contract, assuring him security he would not have if he decided to set out for Hollywood. Instead of Full House sinking without Jesse, they ended up sinking together.



*- not counting the Mary-Kate & Ashley Olson business empire, which has had more to do with cheap labor and marketing than talent.

Presumed Innocent (1990)

Ending Killed it for Me

[14 May 2003]

I think the ending pretty much ruined the film for me. Without revealing any spoilers, I feel that having to listen to what seemed like ten minutes of contrived dialogue by the murderer explaining the murder step by step was unbelievable. It was long and painful to sit through, and a horrible way to end a film.

The film toys with the audience, presenting differing characters who are set up in a way that will make them seem like the murderer. The problem I had with this is that the film skims over the characters without any real development. For example, Brian Dennehy's character was very prominent in the beginning of the film but disappeared in the second half.

I also didn't like the two prosecutors, Molto and LaGuardia (sorry if I mispelled), they are just too visibly slimy for lawyers. They constantly shift and squirm, lacking the composure that a true lawyer would uphold in the courtroom.

Raul Julia and the Japanese medical examiner were the only performances that stood out. The medical examiner was a treat to watch, while Julia impressed me with his slickness and subdued style.

I love Harrison Ford, but he has three facial expressions throughout the whole film and speaks in his deep monotone style which reveals little emotion.

The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! (1989)

Oldschool Nintendo

[4 May 2003]

You'd have to have been born somewhere between the late seventies and early eighties to have fully appreciated Oldschool Nintendo. Even though the major Nintendo stars such as Mario and Link are still with us today, their innocence doesn't hold up any more in a gaming world full of violence and mature themes. I remember watching this show religiously every day after school, during a time of my life when anything Nintendo was sacred.

I had the opportunity recently to watch some of the episodes, and found it a fun experience to relive that bit of nostalgia. Even though cartoons have vastly improved over the years, I believe that the episodes still hold up pretty well. Memories of the time I had a crush on Princess Toadstool and Zelda, sang along to the Mario song, and pretended I was Link dueling with bad guys in my back yard seem to come back to me as I watched.

The style of the cartoons is outdated in comparison to the superb quality we have today, but if you fit into that age range I mentioned previously, you'll find some great nostalgic value in these cartoons.

Beauty and the Beast (1991)

Live your own fairy tale

[10/10 · 19 January 2003]

Belle is a young woman who has arrived at that age where budding dreams and fantasies begin to well up inside her young heart and yearn for a form of release. The world of the small French town where she lives revolves around the dreary hustle and bustle of everyday life, with the fate of woman's domestic life waiting to entrap her. She alienates herself from her fellow townspeople with her quirky and aloof nature, and instead transmutes her desire for escape into a love for books. We see her passionately singing to a passing herd of sheep of her adoration for tales of romance and adventure, yet later when she sits alone in her house feelings of loneliness and depression begin to surface.

Despite the importance literature holds in her heart, the film develops the theme of going out and living your own adventure. This message really strikes home in the closing scene of the movie, when an image of Belle and the Prince transfigures into artwork in a stained glass window, a grand gesture of how this small-town girl with big dreams has changed into a symbol of fantasy and magic that captured in the art of the stained glass attains a sense of immortality and truth. I think it is important in this sense to realize that both Beauty and the Beast undergo their own separate form of transformation.

The Beast is somewhat underdeveloped, for we never really learn much about him other than that behind the rough, animal facade is something warm and benevolent that Belle brings to life. We learn more about him through his actions, rather than through dialogue or song, yet there are certain moments in the film, such as when Beast decides to let Belle go, when the magic of the animators really shines. Beast has the largest, most expressive face of all the characters in the film, and the animation team really brings it to life. After he transforms, though, he becomes just another pretty blonde face, which has a subtle resemblance to Aladdin (a later Disney character).

Enjoy the film, then go out and live your own fairy tale.

10 out of 10.

Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas (1997 Video)

Commentary on the Special Edition DVD

[8/10 · 27 November 2002]

The original film is such a masterpiece that it sets the bar so high for this sequel, and you have to keep this in mind when you sit down to watch this. First of all, I think it is such a delight to have the entire cast from the original back and at it. I think the film would really have been hurt if even one of the voice actors had been replaced.

I think what made the original so strong was the music and lyrics of Alan Menken and Howard Ashman. Every song was beautiful, witty, and did so much to develop the story and characters. There a but a few songs in The Enchanted Christmas, and the only one that is somewhat memorable is the song "Stories", whose melody becomes a sort of musical motif that recurs throughout the film. The interesting animation sequence during this song is one of the highlights of the film, and it is nothing like anything featured in the original.

If you are a die-hard fan of Beauty and the Beast like myself, you will enjoy seeing the characters in action... but, sadly, it feels different and less magical than the original. The script is a little thin, and the voice acting isn't totally consistent with the original. For example, Robby Benson, who voices Beast, sounds very strange at times and seems to be overacting. But it seems that the Beast in general is very exaggerated throughout the film so this is probably not Benson's fault. Paige O'Hara as Belle as always has a remarkably beautiful voice, whether she is singing or talking. It is so wonderful to hear her put life into the character again.

One thing that I feel was very wrong with this film is that an entire sequence was devoted to showing how the Prince turned away the Enchantress on Christmas and became the Beast. I think that the original film did a marvelous job by telling this part of the story through the stained glass sequence in the beginning, but seeing it portrayed here again sort lacks that fairy-tale wonder to it that the images in stained glass conveyed so well.

Aside from this minor point, I believe if you enjoyed the original like myself, you won't have too hard a time of enjoying this film. Like I mentioned, it would be impossible to match the beauty and magic of the original solely in that the music just cannot match the genius of the Menken/Ashman collaboration. Even though the animation is low-budget, a wonderful soundtrack would have made the sequel great.

My commentary on the Special Edition DVD is that I thought the behind-the-scenes feature was wonderful, and although it is short, you get some really great interviews from the voice actors including Tim Curry who makes his debut as the story's new villain. You don't get to see Paul Reubens though, whose voice and character I found rather annoying. No big loss. One problem I had, however, is with the quality of the image. The Special Edition of the original on DVD has an amazing picture quality, and the colors are so lucid and spectacular, yet in the Enchanted Christmas DVD the colors are somewhat dull and faded. Aside from that, the other special features are just some nonsense that is thrown in just to satisfy the Special Edition title, but the behind-the-scenes feature is good enough for me.

On a final note, I noticed that there are Roman numerals on the side of the DVD cases of both films. Supposedly there will be a third Beauty and the Beast Special Edition coming out soon. Can't wait.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

Forgettable characters make a forgettable film

[7/10 · 27 June 2002]

The main problem I had with Attack of the Clones was that the new characters presented in this new trilogy just have not been captivating at all. Part of this is due to the horrible, wooden dialogue that has plagued the first 2 of this new series, but it just seems that the level of creativity and intelligence that went into creating the original cast is completely gone.

In the original trilogy, the duo of Han Solo and Chewbacca gave the original trilogy an energy and warmth that lacks in the new installments. Another great duo, C-3PO and R2D2 provided their own blend of comedy and just plain innovation as far as their costume design, which was something never seen before. No one has been able to reproduce another Darth Vader, which the incredible voice, the brilliant costume design, and the sheer mystery and awe he gave off.

Attack of the Clones features some really good Hollywood talent in Hayden, Natalie, Ewan, Christopher Lee, Samuel Jackson, etc, but the chemistry and the magic just doesn't exist in the film. Their characters have no edge, no individual style, nothing that sets them apart from anything people have seen before. There really is no one to root for, no one you really can cheer for, other than the computer animated Yoda.

The characters of the original trilogy were so fun to watch because your initial reaction was something like, "jeez, how did they come up with this stuff???" In the new installments, the best that Lucas's team can come up with is Jar Jar Binks and a bunch of bizarre, forgettable computer-animated creatures.

Even worse, Lucas's team relies too much on the originals. I am baffled as to why this Jango Fett was created. I understand that the Lucas team wanted to explain how the Clones and the so-called "Clone Wars" began, but why do a total RIP OFF of the Boba Fett character from the originals? Boba Fett was another brilliant design by the original team, his high-powered battle suit was just awesome and frightening, but his role was a small one in the scheme of things, and nothing more was alluded to. Along with the Boba Fett rip-off, why bring back C-3PO and R2D2? Again, the Lucas team is just lazy, un-inspired, or completely stupid in their choice to introduce these characters. In such an amazing, vast universe, how could this story revolve around a small group of characters? In my opinion, there may be two reasons for this. One, Jango Fett and the droids make for really great toys, and the people who profit from Lucas must absolutely drool when they think of the new line of Jango Fett toys that will hit shelves soon. Second, I think the new Lucas team are either not as talented as the original artists (who were absolute GENUISES), or they are afraid of taking risks and making the effort of creating a whole new universe for people to enjoy. Maybe Lucas was scared of trying something new, so his team decided to ride on the magic of the original trilogy. Nevertheless, the creativity is gone, replaced by computer animation, very pretty on the surface, but very shallow indeed.

There is one more thing that has been bothering me. The design of the stormtroopers is obviously somewhat different from that of the orginal soldiers, as the helmets are different, they seem to be more related to Jango Fett. But I also noticed that the design of the Star Destroyers, which also appear near the end of the film, seem somewhat different than in the original trilogy. Is this intended as an early design that will be changed later by the Empire? Or is this Lucas's new interpretation of what the Empire should have looked like? I was a little confused on that matter.

I gave the film a 6 out of 10.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

The Phantom Menace all over again

[9/10 · 27 December 2001]

Lord of the Rings follows in the footsteps of George Lucas' epic flop:

1) Bad dialogue: the characters spend a great portion of the 3 hrs. explaining the world of the novels to the audience, almost as if the script were taking lines straight out from the novel.

2) Cinematic cliches: the pounding footsteps a la Jurassic Park announce the arrival of the next big bad guy, those irritating JOLT!! scenes where enemies pop out of nowhere into the camera, comrades that take 15 minutes to pass away (but not before they have a chance to say goodbye), and many more than can be mentioned here...

3) The Hero's Journey: haven't people gotten tired of this formula yet?

4) Special FX overkill: long stretches of the aforementioned bad dialogue are interspersed with lavish, computer generated worlds. Its very pretty, but its all been done before by Lucas' Industrial Light and Magic a million times. Well, at least no Jar Jar Binks equivalent in LOTR.

This film has shot up to the vaunted #1 spot on the IMdB's 250 of all time, proving that hype really does work wonders, even if people have been duped before by Lucas' box office buster "The Phantom Menace" (which itself eventually exited from the top 250). Naturally, Lord of the Rings will not only blow away the box offices, but also the Oscars. Expect another "Titanic" showing at the Academy Awards.

Best film of all time? Hmmm. Give it a couple of months. Don't expect LOTR to hold the top spot for too long.

American Pie 2 (2001)

Best film of 2001

[8/10 · 11 August 2001]

After suffering through all the bombs that have been put out this summer, I must say that Pie 2 was the best film I've seen this year. Hands down. That says a lot about the quality of 2001.

Some of the actresses have explained in interviews that they are now against nudity and explicit material, and apparently the filmmakers punished them by giving them small roles that border on cameo appearances. Also, notice the obvious intros each of the male cast members get, perhaps for audience reaction? The material is consistent with the original as it is full of casual sex, underage alcohol consumption, and high levels of machismo... the kind of stuff that politicians and censors gnarl at.

Essentially, the film is basically centered around the gags, the spaces in between filled with some crude semblance of plot. Anyhow, I came in, had a good time, had a good laugh, what more could you ask for?

8 of 10.

Where the Heart Is (2000)

Where the Wallet Is

[5/10 · 4 October 2000]

***Spoiler Warning***

The film is standard big budget Hollywood nonsense. The characteristics (or rather symptoms) of this sort of garbage: wasteful use of established, ultra talented cast (Natalie Portman, Ashley Judd, Sally Fields {cameo}) put to work with a horrible script (adapted from the novel by Billie Letts) that avoids building on interesting themes (Novalee Nation's development as a mother, which would have been a twist in respect to Natalie Portman's last movie, in which she plays a daughter), instead relying on the typical silly coincidences and cliches that will draw the "chick flick" and "date movie" crowd.

The plot spans the some-odd 5-8 years in the life of a underprivileged young woman who steps out into the world with nothing more than a Polaroid camera and a baby and ends up with financial security, a perfect marriage, and a close friend in Lexie Coop. The film seems to try to go for the witty Mark Twain humor and satire but the result is rather bland as the material seems rather uninspired to give an effect of slick, sugary, pretentious fairy tale that countless other movies before have offered. Beyond the exciting climax of Novalee taking shelter and having her baby in a large department store, the story seems to lead nowhere, with numerous cartoonish developments that seem to initiate from anything in relation to the number 5.

As an actress, Natalie Portman is a fine jewel that only the most talented director can shape into something of merit. The absence of such a presence is disheartening, considering her early work was so superb. Since "The Professional" made her one of my favorite actresses, it strikes a nerve to see her repeatedly shaped into a casual, nameless starlet who's essence is lost amongst the others like a grain of salt lost in the sand.

Ok, enough rant. The judgment: 5 of 10. :)

A Year and a Half in the Life of Metallica (1992 Video)

Half documentary, half comedy act

[9/10 · 4 October 2000]

The two segments involved in the documentary feature Metallica, both the black-clad public leaders of metal madness and the laid-back, long hair goofballs from down the hall playing electric guitar at 3 in the morning.

The direction was awful shaky. In terms of a documentary, director Adam Dubin chose to involve the presence of the film crew as much as possible in the privacy and business of the bandmembers to the point of where much of the material is essentially them playing to the camera. This is an effect that can alter the realism of the documentary and put the subjects into a position to where they feel compelled to "act" for the camera instead of being their true selves. There were also many baffling cuts into the middle of a joke or editing techniques that involved blending and blurring of conversations that at times some of the meaning and humor is lost. The effect is similar to walking abruptly into a roomful of laughing people, and not getting the joke.

The documentary does work best as an insight into the workings of major studio album. For example, in the first half, we get to witness the real brains behind the band in action as drummer Lars Ulrich and lead vocalist and rhythm guitarist James Hetfield butt heads and raise all hell and putting their ambitious new project titled "The Black Album" into tape. The album displayed a new mainstream style with emphasis on shorter, slicker songs. Metallica, a band that has *forever* been called "sellouts", seem to know what they were getting themselves into, and the hard work and determination evident in the documentary dispels any doubts of their merit.

Interesting to note is the minimal input lead guitarist Kirk Hammet and bassist Jason Newstead (this being only his second album with the band) contribute to the production process. They more or less are nowhere to be seen for most of the first half of the documentary. Also, note the lack of reference (reasons unknown) to Michael Kamen, the composer of the string section on the track "Nothing Else Matters", who Metallica later worked with on the "S&M" project.

Metallica nonetheless has a very drawing power, and the documentary, peppered with some awesome filming of the band doing what they do best in concert and the well-done music videos, is a must have for anyone.

Léon: The Professional (1994)

24 minutes added to a classic

[10/10 · 21 August 2000]

The recently released DVD of Luc Besson's "Leon" is packaged as the uncut international version. Included are about 25 some-odd minutes of material that was deemed too explicit to fit the "R" rating (R= restricted material, appropriate for ages 17 and older) and therefore was cut.

For the most part, there were 2 major sequences that were evidently not in the original US "R" version that I had viewed. The first one concerns Mathilda's "first hit". The second, in chronological order, concerns Leon's "first love".

I can see from the editor's point of view that there were indeed some scenes that were a bit out of place, and perhaps lagged a bit, but I have to argue that there was definitely some incredible pieces of film being blatantly chopped off of Besson's masterpiece. Not since a certain New York DJ was sued by the FCC have I seen such a horrible stifling of genius by censorship.

Violence and sex have been major themes in movies for a long time, but mixing children with violence and sex is taboo, at least thats what the censors had in mind. As a previous IMDb reviewer stated, these scenes are in fact disturbing, but that is exactly what Besson has in mind. By cleaning up the film to present it in its "R" version, much of the emotional connection Besson crafted was lost, and just a little bit of the meaning behind some major plot tools (I'll be as vague as possible to protect those who have not seen the uncut version) such as the "ring trick", the "pink dress", the "skull cap" (or whatever its called), and the "bed share".

If you love this film, buy the DVD: unrated version, and enjoy. It has to be the best "cut" since Ridley Scott's "Bladerunner: Director's Cut.

Fright Night (1985)

Hip 80's Horror

[8/10 · 19 August 2000]

Fright Night is a film that tries hard to be cool.

Main character Charlie lives as an only child with a mother that turns a blind eye to his sexual and social development, and holds a similar treatment to his room-- that kind that every teenagers dreams of having but is denied by his parents, with the horror film nostalgia covering every bare inch of both wall and table.

Dracula here loses the cape, the white makeup, and takes on a hip, older-man personage that will naturally drive the young girls wild. Looking like he just stepped off of poster that some girl pinned above her bed, Dandridge carries a strong aura of sexuality and mystique, as is required of such a dark character. Despite the subtle homosexual nature of his relationship with his human accomplice in crime, which is debatable as imagined or not, he is quite a lady's man, in essence, the complete opposite of inexperienced, high-pitched Charlie.

Essentially, the setup is that this film was intended for teens, and although the fashions (as with almost all things 80's) have quickly become outdated, the ideas still remain the same. Instead of the pretentious Gothic hue that most vampire movies fall into, this one just tries to be a hip, fun movie to watch.

Peter Vincent, the over-the-hill horror movie star, states in one scene that nobody cared anymore about vampires, that people only wanted to see serial killers in ski masks chopping up campers. He was right on, as many of the 80's horror films had become mindless slash fests that took themselves too seriously with the "teens get laid, then teens get slashed" formula that was recycled throughout those countless sequels. Fright Night just tries to be hip, have a little fun, and thumb its nose at those other horror flicks.

Overlook the bad laughs that 80's trends can induce, mind the annoyance that is Charlie Brewster (do all of his lines have to end in exclamation points? "I hate exclamation points!"-Elaine Benes) and enjoy some particularly good special effects.

Altered States (1980)

Average Sci-Fi

[7/10 · 13 August 2000]

Ken Russell's Altered States is a hard movie to like. William Hurt plays (to quote the movie trailer) a Nobel Prize nominated Harvard science professor trapped in the body of a blonde hunk. Somewhat of a whiz kid, Hurt's character reads scripts that seem straight out of a textbook. Theories on genetics, experiences with halucinogens, and those funky chemical names fly out of his mouth at 90 miles per hour, leaving you confused.

Editing here wasn't so great. Late 70's special effects were not very much advanced, so it can be accepted that the special effects will be lacking, but shifts in time seem to happen without warning; in one scene Hurt gets married, next scene, Hurt has 2 kids?

Altered States is a run of the mill science fiction movie in that it takes an interesting premise and just sums it all up at the end with a fireworks show of special effects. There is no bright idea brought into light, no questions left lingering in the viewer's mind after the film. All that is left is that the power or God or truth that the scientist had been searching for is materialized into some sort of nefarious entity that Hurt fights against in a cheesy climatic battle. This makes for a horrible ending. Following the "battle" Hurt's character completely revises his life-long philosophy in a matter of seconds, and utters that phrase that is the hallmark of all cliches: "I love you."

That there may be a way to tap into the information stored within the billions of years old atomic particles that make up our body and discover the truth about the meaning of life is a brilliant idea to ponder, and it could have been handled a billion ways better than it was in this film.

Out of Sight (1998)

Masterpiece of Character Development

[10/10 · 10 July 2000]

This movie is so unique, and so utterly amazing in its ability to present us time after time with real, believable characters. And there are lots here, and even though they may appear for about 5 minutes (e.g. Michael Keaton, Albert Brooks, etc.), somehow we get to learn a little bit about them, to catch a small glimpse of their life. Even the three ad guys at the bar seemed like the type you'd meet up with in real life. If their parts were totally irrelevant to the movie, somehow they just fit anyway.

How do the filmmakers achieve this effect, and how do they do it so seamlessly? I thought the technique was by not presenting the characters to through their great accomplishments, but by their natural human faults. I know it is wrong to love someone for their errors, we should rather love them for their virtues, etc, etc. But I feel there is an aspect of imperfection in an individual's failures that is a major quality of what makes us human.

Jack Foley (George Clooney) is a graying bank robber who, despite a sense of good nature and intelligence, does unplanned, and unarmed, bank heists and consequently spends most of his time in prison, no doubt scheming up new plans to get out. Foley doesn't seem like the typical criminal who'd blame his anti-social habits on a bad childhood; rather, he carries a cocky, comical air of someone who does it for the heck of it, or maybe, to quote Foley, he's just not a nine-to-five kind of guy. Karen Sisco (Jennifer Lopez) is Foley's feminine equivalent, who ignores her conscience and carries her cat and mouse games to the fullest extent, jeopardizing her career. Sisco is very firm and bubbling with self-esteem, yet she's dating an married FBI agent who carries an arrogant, macho look on his face.

Of course, I could go on forever, from Buddy's (Ving Rhames) certainly dull-witted habit of calling his sister to confess of jobs, especially one confession that got him and Foley busted, to White Boy Bob, who you'd write off as a basic bad guy character, until he does that thing to himself near the end of the movie.

Now, there are many who will fault the movie for lagging, having too much dialogue, etc. But I felt that if the movie was slowed down in any way, it was because the filmmakers took the guts to devote a little bit to create and flourish each character. And that is why I love this film so much; this was made for an intelligent audience, for an audience that wants a little more out of dialogue, wants to get aroused without explicit sexuality on-screen (styles director Soderbergh is known for), and enjoy a good crime movie without the repetitive, drawn out gun battles.

Soderbergh wanted to go mainstream with this movie, but you can only see him going deeper and deeper into film avant-garde. Just hope those corrupt Hollywood producers, after seeing the lagging (there's that word again) box office receipts, don't get to him.

10 of 10.

The Manchurian Candidate (1962)

Awesome

[10/10 · 7 July 2000]

There are two powerful climatic sequences at the end of the film that had my palms sweating. This is a superb, intelligent movie that perhaps could have used a more commercial name and a little less of the main character explaining everything to the audience routine.

Sinatra is very believable in his role, and he definitely carries the look of someone who has endured the torture and pain. Co-actor Laurence Harvey, who looked to me a lot like a young Clint Eastwood, also does a good job of playing the snobbish soldier with an even worse predicament. And Angela Lansbury, playing Harvey's mother, gives a career-highlight performance.

I'm a big fan of poetry, and the strong symbolism achieved through the use of the deck of cards was intriguing, which worked perfectly within the whole theme of brainwashing. No doubt the filmmakers picked an utterly fascinating topic which could have been taken in so many directions as to lose focus of the plot but rather chose to focus on the Oedipal relationship between the unwilling killer and his conniving mother.

The film does lag however in the scene where Sinatra and Janet Leigh first meet, and I still can't understand why she was included in the story.

10 of 10.

The Underneath (1995)

Standard Soderbergh

[7/10 · 5 July 2000]

Given that the occupation of a director resides for the most part not in front of the camera, but behind the scenes, working in the "soul" of the movie, so to speak, it can seem difficult to decipher little if anything about his personality.

There are a few directors (most notably Tim Burton comes to mind) who have a familiar, personalized style that pervades each of their films and in a way gives us a sort of motivation towards wanting to go see their next film. Soderbergh is a director I have learned of recently (through his debut film "sex, lies, and videotape") who has certainly crafted his own style of film noir.

I'm lost when it comes to the esoteric realm of film history and jargon, but what I have witnessed with Soderbergh's work is a devotion to precise camera work and movement, a solid screenplay filled with its share of real people with real, if somewhat out of the ordinary problems, and an overall sense of gloom and helplessness against it that is the heart of the film.

If Soderbergh has remained for the most part a "cult hit" I can only reason it would be due to that in his work there is no redemption, no epiphany or accomplishment achieved by a character that would amount to a sense of victory, of a happy ending. As a child, I enjoyed the happy endings of the cartoons, where everyone stands around laughing, but now as an adult, one realizes that situations in real life don't quite work out that way. If an ending to a movie seems troublesome, with issues left unresolved, I feel my imagination intrigued by the possibilities of what goes on after the story ends. Will so and so work off his problems? Will so and so get back together and love each other again? In such a case the filmmakers take the initiative to assume that the audience is an intelligent and interested in the characters. If executed properly, a film will succeed not because of what is shown, but what is not shown.

So the point that I'm trying to bring up is a sort of analysis between the films and the filmmaker. To assume Soderbergh uses the art form as a sort of release, as a confession (to quote him) is a fascinating idea. Then what can be deduced from watching his films? No doubt, an intelligent, deep man with a troubled past, caught in a web of disappointing relationships, dead end jobs, and a personal view of life that is so haunted by the past that it is unable to see the future in a bright perspective, if at all.

By the way, the most intelligent men aren't always the most popular. But I love intelligence and certainly Soderbergh shall make his way into my video collection.

The Patriot (2000)

Too Many Bad Laughs, Not Enough "Heart".

[6/10 · 4 July 2000]

***Spoiler Alert***

Besides its many faults, there are actually a few scenes that really shine in this movie.

No doubt this is an action movie, and looking back to the previous Mel Gibson movie "Braveheart", the audience is revved up for some intense, gore-filled scenes. The first action scene which involves Gibson's character and his two young sons ambushing a small band of British soldiers was ingenious. The cinematography was spectacular. Its a shame to say that the following action sequences were lacking in color and originality, and even seemed to be quite repetitive. No doubt a bad guy that seemingly defies death time after time is almost comical in a place where comedy doesn't fit. What is this guy, a cat? How many lives does he have? Its like the Super Mario game, where you keep throwing Koopa into the lava, but the sucker keeps coming back!

Another scene that stands out in mind is a brilliant "battle-of-wits" between Gibson and the much-feared General Cornwallis. The dialogue hits right on the spot, and the last shot of the general's aide walking in with the "released officer" was film at its best. No doubt this is when I figured out that the movie worked best with it worked on its comedic elements, when used properly, however. There is quite a bit of material here that is unfailingly prone to bad laughs.

Gibson fares very well amidst the chaos of a script that tries too hard to hit the audience's emotional and patriotic buttons. It is important to notice that the bright spots of the film are those run by Gibson and his natural acting ability to cover every possible range of acting (he is quite remarkable at that). The rest of the film is too overbearing with shallow melodrama and "cardboard characters". The actors that take up the small parts do little but play into stereotypes and little virtuosity is exhibited.

To have made this a better movie, the filmmakers would have been wise to spend a little more time in the editing room, cutting out the unnecessary melodrama bits that make the movie so long, create a little bit of character intrigue in the antagonists, and most of all focus more on Gibson; the large band of characters and their adjoining, uninteresting subplots drain away from the focus of the film.

Which reminds me, what was the focus of the film? Oh, thats right, patriotism. Since we live in a society that holds such cynical regards to such words as patriotism, couldn't a better theme or title been aplied here? Nobody bought that silly Hulk Hogan "say your prayers, eat your vitamins, and salute your flag" slogan, so why should anyone now?

There was that other war, called Vietnam, that put a big damper on that patriot stuff. Ok, you can say I'm reading too much into the themes here, but at least take a second to think about it.

6 of 10.

The Last Emperor (1987)

A Look Into the Mind of a Ruler

[9/10 · 2 July 2000]

Many questions linger after this film.

In the some odd seventeen years leading up to his death, the former emperor Pu Yi is defeated and unloved, long gone from the money and servants that framed the life that he leads us through in his flashbacks. But had anything ever changed? Much of the film shows him quite defeated and unloved, trapped in perhaps the most exclusive prison in the world.

The director keeps in mind throughout this film that as he presents us the emperor, bit by bit, year by year, the audience must come to some opinion on how they view the man portrayed before them. Will he be a man loved, or despised? If no emotional attachment has been created, then the movie fails.

My own opinion seems to have been caught between loving and hating him. Yes, the early scenes in which the emperor explores the limitless power and beauty bestowed upon him with child-like innocence and wonder are touching, but as he becomes a man, so does his world begin to be seen through the darkness and immorality of an adult.

Never quite an "absolute ruler", the emperor's career seemed destined to fail by a world changing and advancing on its own far beyond his reach, both physically and symbolically. Should we feel love for him because he has failed? If Hitler had been unable to advance Nazi Germany to such imposing power in WWII, instead ending, let's say, as a lowly street sweeper, would not have film documentaries have crowned him the ingenious man that could have saved Germany from humiliation and poverty?

Surely, Pu Yi had all the markings of an evil tyrant: the intimidating intelligence, the arrogance to challenge anyone or thing that defies him, and ultimately the will to mold any situation into his favor.

There are many forces outside his grasp that shackle him, and inevitably he is indeed a failure, a joke. But that is not enough to make me love him. It is an error to love a man for his failures, but rather one should love him for that which he contributes to life. But what does Pu Yi contribute to his life? His is littered with the bodies of those that have come into contact with him, a morbid graveyard created from deaths that did not come from his hands, but from his ego and his power.

My inability to either love or hate him if anything makes him quite human. If he had been blatantly set up as an obvious protagonist or antagonist, the movie would have been flat, shallow. Humans are hard things to find in movies these days, and here is a rare opportunity to catch a sight of one. Kudos to Bertolucci for such an intelligent film.

Dolores Claiborne (1995)

High-Quality Stephen King Adaptation

[9/10 · 29 June 2000]

For some reason or another, the highly revered Oscar awards have some sort of grudge against Stephen King movies. Stand by Me, The Shawshank Redemption, and now Dolores Claiborne are great films that have gone mostly ignored. There is no better advertising platform than the Academy Awards, and no doubt these three movies have all done dismally in the box office.

But thats beside the point. Kathy Bates, who I'm beginning to like a lot, did win an Academy Award for a King portrayal in "Misery" and gives a solid performance here.

She is a tough-as-nails woman who has crafted some sort of image as the town she-devil as she was once accused of having murdered her husband. It doesn't help much that she has spent most of her life working in solitude with a decaying old rich woman, far away from a daughter who hasn't visited in fifteen years.

Although Dolores' comedic ability is overdone a bit in the beginning, we are taken through a series of flashbacks that reveal the terrible events that have brought her here to where she is now: once again the prime suspect in the murder of someone who is in the position to provide great life insurance benefits.

I thought the handling of the script was ingenious. The characters are presented to us, the situation established, and then the director proceeds to completely turn everything upside down as we dive beneath the surface and discover what really was going on here. One scene that stands out in particular was the one between Dolores and Vera, her strict employee, as they discuss methods to handling a deviant husband. More than just a plot device, there is a reaction created between the two and you can see the bond that is growing there that will hold them together for those fifteen-plus years of solitary confinement.

If there was any fault within the film, it has to lie with the incompleteness of Detective John Mackey. He seems very driven to crush Dolores, but why? There never was any inquiry by the flashbacks as to what was the history between the two, and there fore the character lacked a little something to make him believable. He is the only "cardboard character" in the movie.

Most of the so called "chick-flicks" are unbearable movies. This one, however, is a classic. Add it to your collection, next to Shawshank.

9 of 10.

Girl, Interrupted (1999)

Plot, Interrupted

[6/10 · 22 June 2000]

Over the years I seem to have developed a certain suspicion of movies that advertise themselves as "emotional", "touching", etc. The problem is that these movies are very phony; any semblance of human depth and true emotion only comes through in cliches and worn out plot devices.

I immediately understood the direction that the film was going to take when a suicide is announced early in the film. Unfortunately most of us have had some sort of experience with suicide at some point of our lives, it is a thing that scars us, or at least haunts us for some time. In the film, however, little is revealed about the girl who killed herself; it's obvious the filmmakers are just looking for a quick emotion shot, throwing around a suicide just to create some sort of dreary, mental hospital atmosphere that is supposed to set the tone for the rest of the film. On paper, it all looks very calculated and laid out, in the film, it just doesn't work.

Spontaneity lacks, of course, when director and screenwriter allow plot to succumb to trick and tactic. As the movie moves into the middle to last acts, it lags horribly, and to shake things up another suicide is presented, this time in much more gruesome fashion. However, I found the dead girl's personality just too much of a cliche and lacking in any real depth to care for her. Again the filmmakers insult the audience's intelligence.

To top it off, the ending is a cartoon ending, where everyone stands around laughing. Poor, poor, poor. The plot goes nowhere, we learn nothing about the cardboard characters presented, and to my dismay I swear that a part of the soundtrack rips off from "The Shawshank Redemption" (maybe I'm imagining it).

Another failed "chick-flick".

6 of 10.

The English Patient (1996)

Beyond "Emotion"...

[7/10 · 20 June 2000]

This is a film that makes a clear effort to present some sort of "Casablanca for the nineties". It borrows the setting of the North African desert in the late 30's, a point on the distant fringe of a landscape beginning to taste the wrath of Nazi Germany. Also apparent is the forbidden attraction between a single, unattached man and a married, respectable woman.

If there is any reason why so many movies, ranging from every genre, have been set in WWII, it is found somewhere in the metaphor of the outside turmoil, devastation, death, heartbreak, etc. in the grand scheme of the war as a reflection, or rather, an allusion to the same happenings occurring the the private personal lives of the characters.

Now, this is all good and well if you are searching hard to create some sort of mood, but it was all to certain that the filmmakers relied just too heavily on the atmosphere of the setting, letting it drive the plot instead of having the film focus on the personal lives of the characters.

The overall effect of the film is that is seems just too calculated, it reaches into a familiar routine that you may notice in many of the so called "tear-jerker" movies. A horrible death here, a shocking suicide there, a forbidden this, an unabashedly sexual that. And so on. Watching the film, I felt bombarded by these various tricks and tactics that are used to make me "feel", to "get emotionally involved".

Of course, I am human, and consequentially I will fall prey to this and feel "touched" at various points in the film. But nonetheless the film lacks that certain, indescribable something that defines the great classic films, including 'Casablanca'. It is some sort of spontaneity in the acting, something uplifting, a performance, perhaps even one line, that sums up the world into the vision of the characters, that makes us believe in them. Something real. Something that produces more than just "emotion", but rather wonder (a word that needs no quotation marks).

Isn't that what real romance is about?

Mission: Impossible II (2000)

Dumbed-down spy flick

[7/10 · 26 May 2000]

In comparison with the original movie, "Mission Impossible 2" had a much clearer, easier to follow script. Whether this helps or hinders the film comes down to how it is interpreted by the individual in the audience; which excites you more, crafty plot and shady characters, or state of the art action scenes?

The action and f/x are no doubt exhilarating, the best Hollywood money can buy, but the script follows the basic action movie plan: a good guy, good guy's buddies, a bad guy, bad guy's buddies, and somewhere in between, the mentor who sends good guy off to adventure, and the attractive love interest that provides a good reason to buy the movie poster (Notice that Tom Cruise is the only person on the poster!).

Now, this is an action flick, and therefore character depth and development are not necessary themes the moviegoer should look for, but "Mission Impossible" exists in the world of the spy genre, where nobody can be trusted and additional viewings and a good eye are required to catch and fully understand the plot. This film was far too simple to be considered in this respect.

The filmmakers do attempt to add some spice, filming in exotic locations with some rather well-done shot sequences, but there are some shots that are done poorly. For example, typically when the director is going to order a straight-forward closeup of an actor's face, the intent is to draw the audience's attention in to set up an important scene. Here, close-ups abound to serve only as eye candy or deliver dumb dialogue such as: "Damn, you are beautiful".

As I stated before, this movie was produced with no restraint on the budget, but as many big-budget films tend to be, this one is beautiful but shallow.

7 out of 10.

Being John Malkovich (1999)

The Frayed Ends of Sanity

[10/10 · 12 May 2000]

This movie is so absurd and so way out there that it will be either hated or loved, there cannot be an in-between. In one of his reviews, Roger Ebert noted that many films nowadays display for the viewer some sort of new novelty that will shock or amaze (think of the 'zipper' scene in "...something about Mary") the audience. "Being John Malkovich" is an experience that takes this premise to a whole new level.

I noticed that the film borrows many themes and ideas from Terry Gilliam's film "Brazil". Most interesting to me was the feeling that the director wanted you to fall in love with a particular character, only to twist the story and make you hate them. In the beginning, I sympathized with Craig, the stereotypical loser with a soft side for art, who later turns out to be a greedy jerk. Then there was his neglected, unattractive wife Lotte, whose personality is revealed to be nothing more than sex-driven and stabs her husband's back. So goes the movie, as it was in Brazil, when every character is later revealed to have an obnoxious, repelling side that drives us to another character to seek comfort in, perhaps to put our faith into as the protagonist that will lead us through the film.

Honestly, the beginning led me to believe that Craig would undergo some transformation that would fulfill his dreams, make him a winner. Having this bubble bursted was somehow disconcerting, uncomfortable, yet utterly ingenious.

The movie is mad, it runs at a frenetic pace, with very strange logic. Much of it seems deja vu, as if I've seen it somewhere else before... yet it is done so well it comes off as original, brilliant. And it is.

10 out of 10.

Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989)

Intriguing Character.

[10/10 · 12 May 2000]

*** Warning *** Contains Spoilers ***

Much of the life surrounding the initial three characters (Gallagher, McDowell, and San Giacomo) plays out like a tv soap opera; they are stereotypical 30-somethings caught in a hollow world dominated by sex and social status. At the center of this love triangle is McDowell, the frigid, introvert hausfrau that suffers from the affair between her husband and her extrovert sister. Basically, there is not much going on here to take note of.

Then comes Spader, the old college buddy. Its obvious from the sexual tension that pervades the early dialogue between Spader and McDowell that he is the dark stranger who will eventually release her from her loveless marriage. Big deal.

But wait.

Out of nowhere, Spader reveals he is impotent. Hmmm. Then he reveals an even stranger tidbit about himself. He has a particular fetish of videotaping women engaged in explicit conversations about their sex lives. Wow. Suddenly I have become drawn in to his character, and surely enough, all 3 of the other characters have become drawn in also to the enigmatic Spader and his fetish.

As the sexual hangups of the other 3 characters eventually cross paths with Spader, who seems to want nothing to do with them, the role of his character comes into question. There seems a subtle crafty intelligence here, something that slips underneath the tough exterior of San Giacomo and somehow convinces her to a sensitive, not at all contrived videotape interview with Spader. Spader seems a sort of psychoanalyst, his videotape fetish a form of new therapy.

Spader's character is what makes this movie so brilliant. Everything about his dark personality leads to the final psychological battle between himself and McDowell. Although it seems a bit rushed, we learn a bit about Spader's own sexual hangups, a slight glimpse into his past, and feel sorry for him, he seems so complex, so unlike the stereotypes of the other 3 characters that one can only fall in love with him. He is what drives the movie, what makes it so brilliant. Without him, the movie fails to be anything more than cheap daytime tv material.

10 out of 10.

End of Days (1999)

...yawn

[6/10 · 26 November 1999]

I wanted to walk out on this one after about a half hour, but I just would not listen to my intuition. It was so blatantly obvious that this movie was borrowing, if not stealing, many ideas from older horror classics. Same old Satan vs. God story, except the producers think you throw some fancy special effects and Arnold Schwarzenegger and they'll draw a big crowd. I knew I should have run out on this one. As an atheist, I was horrified by how the movie soon turned into these long discussions on religion, God, and "Book of Revelations" material. Unless you are a die-hard believer in the darker side of the christian religion, you will find it hard to sit through all of this. I've seen all of this sort of "revelations" material in many previous movies, and it never seems to get any more interesting with the next flick.

It was cool to see those two fellas from "The Usual Suspects" come together, as both are great actors, but the overall movie was just dull, and the amount of religion thrown onto you is much overdone. Very unoriginal and boring. Go see James Bond's "The World is Not Enough" instead.

6 of 10.