Reviews written by
jasper (nieuwes1@freeler.nl)

Page 1 of 8:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [Next]
74 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Excitement in the extreme, 23 April 2001
8/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

=====Rating System: ***** Must see **** Very good *** I liked it, but you might hate it ** I hated it, but you might like it * Avoid====

Whenever you start watching a movie and it gives you the chills right from the very start, you know something special is definitely on the cards. This movie does indeed have you hooked from the beginning, never allowing you to catch your breath until the obvious climax.

Plot spoilers don't apply to this movie, for everybody already knows the outcome of this story, but that's not a disadvantage in this case, for Thirteen Days pulls off the same trick as Titanic, keeping its audience interested when they already know how it's gonna end.

Kevin Costner stars as Kenny O'Donnel, political advisor of John F. Kennedy (an excellent Bruce Greenwood), who leads the big man through the most tense 13 days in world history. When the Russians plant numerous nukes on Cuba to threaten the USA, everybody surrounding the president wants battle followed by an invasion into Russia. In search for a more sensible solution, JFK struggles with his brother and Kenny to protect the US citizens, and ultimately the whole world.

Thirteen Days is a tense story with some excellent performances and great action sequences, all caught by amazing photography. The only thing that holds this movie from being a masterpiece is the slightly disappointing ending, since the audience never feels the relief people in '62 must have felt. The fact that this remains an ensemble picture means it never has an emotional core, which obstructs this movie to have a satisfying ending. Maybe Costner's role should have been more elaborate, or maybe he should simply have played JFK, making this a picture totally focused on him. Anyway, when you go and see this movie, be prepared to leave the cinema a changed person.

****

What's more fun than watching 'Scary Movie'..., 10 April 2001

===== Rating System: ***** Must see **** Very good *** I liked it, but you might hate it ** I hated it, but you might like it * Avoid ====

#1 Take the four 1 dollar bills you were gonna spend to watch 'Scary Movie' out of your pocket.

#2 Take a match or a lighter (doesn't really matter) and light it.

#3 With one hand, hold the first bill from the top corner while letting the paper slowly burn from the bottom.

#4 When the pain from the fire becomes absolutely unbearable, let what's left of the bill drop on the ground and watch it burn to ashes.

#5 Repeat this procedure with bills nr. two, three and four.

If you choose to rent 'Scary Movie' instead, you will be deeply sorry. Don't say I didn't warn you, though. This movie really is beyond awful.

*

Beautiful, captivating story with great performances, 6 April 2001

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

===== Rating System: ***** Must see **** Very good *** I liked it, but you might hate it ** I hated it, but you might like it * Avoid ==== ***Spoiler ahead, but it's also in the title, you know***

Cheerful title, but fortunately the movie is much better. The Virgin Suicides is a small, intimate story about five girls who commit suicide in a relatively short time. The world around them, and especially five boys who were closest to them, is amazed, ignorant about their motives and the five think about their time together and what drove the girls to their terrible act.

It's Coppola's stylish and patient direction and the overall excellent performances that make this a remarkable, if not, great experience. Kirsten Dunst, who arguably carries the movie, is as great as ever, but the ace in the sleeve is James Woods, who shocks the world by actually giving a nuanced and brilliant performance. James Woods plays the girls' father/teacher who tries to give them a break, but is overruled by the consistent mother, played by Kathleen Turner.

A lot of people on this site who complain about this movie state the movie doesn't really have a point, it would leave to much to the imagination of the viewer. I think the mystery IS the point of the movie, kind of a wake-up call to the viewer to discuss the motives of the parent(s) to keep their children safe at the house, away from the boys and the motive of the girls to kill themselves. The movie gives plenty of clues to figure it out, so have fun doing so.

See it.

****

Carrey gives the best performance of the year..., 5 April 2001
9/10

=====Rating System: ***** Must see **** Very good *** I liked it, but you might hate it ** I hated it, but you might like it * Avoid==== ...and he doesn't even get an Oscar nomination. What does that tell you about the Oscars???

This is just one of those very few movies that manages to touch you on about every level, sometimes hysterically funny, sometimes moving and always intriguing. Jim Carrey delivers a powerhouse performance, one of the best I've seen. There are a few problems, though, where the script doesn't really know which way to head. It's not really clear if it goes entirely for the laughs or the drama, and near the end you don't know whether you are supposed to take out the hankies for the tears of laughter or crying.

Courteney Love's character is a little underwritten, which wasn't expected after her 'wide' performance in People vs. Larry Flynt. Her character is totally useless and forgettable, but maybe it's just because it fades away in comparison to Carrey's. It's still one of the most complete films of recent years, just like the Truman Show was. Jim Carrey shines like never before, and his performance is worth the rental price alone. Prepare to be amazed.

*****

6 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
After Proof of life, this felt like a masterpiece..., 18 March 2001
10/10

===== Rating System: ***** Must see **** Very good *** I liked it, but you might hate it ** I hated it, but you might like it * Avoid ====

If you can forgive this movie for its undeniable flaws, it's actually pretty enjoyable. If you don't mind

-A ridiculously fake eagle at the beginning, which is unintentionally hilarious

-People taking nitroglycerine up a mountain, only for it to explode several times for no apparent reason but spectacle

-An ending which makes the whole movie seem pointless (It's a rescue mission, after 24 hours of climbing and victims and rescuers half dead, suddenly they're down and safe again with no explanation whatsoever)

then you're in for a 120 minute thrill ride with great action sequences, some amazing stunts and a couple of funny moments. If you take it too seriously it is probably the worst movie you'll ever see.

***

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
A rare thing these days: A thriller with thrills, 18 March 2001

===== Rating System: ***** Must see **** Very good *** I liked it, but you might hate it ** I hated it, but you might like it * Avoid ====

Similarities with 'the Sixth Sense (1999)' will inevitably be drawn, and it ends with the fact that it's also about a person who can see ghosts. The lucky one here is Tom Witzky (Kevin Bacon) who, after he's hypnotized by his sister in law, has strange visions about a girl who's obviously trying to tell Tom something.

The movie starts with confusion; Tom's little son can talk with dead people, so (especially after 6th Sense) you might assume the focus will stay on his son. As the film moves on, Tom suddenly acquires the ability, and it forgets about his son who turns out to be a useless character.

The movie retains its power, though, and as soon as Tom starts to investigate his visions and the things that happen in the neighborhood the movie grabs you and never lets you go until the excellent climax.

It's not as accomplished a product as The Sixth Sense, but it manages to stand on its own as a great thriller with some excellent performances and neat camera-tricks (the ghosts move at a slightly slower speed than the living). If you like Kevin Bacon and thrillers in general, this is definitely one to watch. Enjoy...

****

2 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Another film that tries to push its audience to the exit..., 13 March 2001
1/10

=====Rating System: ***** Must see **** Very good *** I liked it, but you might hate it ** I hated it, but you might like it * Avoid==== ...and it succeeds admirably. My motive for visiting the cinema is pretty simple: I just want to be entertained. Maybe I'm being too demanding here, but to me this movie failed on every conceivable level.

You see, this is, or it tries to be a romantic action-thriller. And, you guessed it, there is no romance, no action and absolutely no thrills to be found. Meg Ryan and Russell Crowe are great actors, but this movie shows them at their weakest. Crowe is undeniably boring, Ryan is, frankly, as affectionate as a block of cheese, and David Morse as the brave love of Ryan's life is the biggest joke of the whole movie.

There is just nothing (good or bad) more to say about this failure, at least the first 90 minutes of it, 'cause that's exactly how long I could stand it. If you want to waste money, this is the right vehicle to do it on. Have a bad day.

*

0 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
The year was 2000. This was disappointment #18., 10 March 2001



The only part I thoroughly liked about this movie was when all those ridiculous fans of 'Galaxy Quest' asked all these ridiculous questions about 'Galaxy Quest' and I found myself thinking; do people like these exist? In a way, you could call this a thought provoking movie, then.

And the rest.

Special effects are decent. Story is non-existent. Great actors like Sigourney Weaver, Alan Rickman and, erm, Tim Allen wander through this movie anonymously. The aliens are irritating. The music/tunes are totally forgettable . The villains are not half as scary as these other damn aliens. Watch it if you must, but don't pay for it. Buy something nice for you boy/girlfriend instead.

**

Snatch. (2000)
Could this have been any better???, 10 March 2001
10/10

===== Rating System: ***** Must see **** Very good *** I liked it, but you might hate it ** I hated it, but you might like it * Avoid ==== This is Guy Ritchie's Pulp Fiction. I didn't think much of the low budget Lock Stock & 2SB, like I didn't really like Reservoir Dogs, but Snatch is brilliant in every, well almost every conceivable way. The 'almost' being Vinnie Jones' embarrassing performance.

Other than that, this film is a wildly entertaining, shocking and plain hysterical roller-coaster ride of a picture. You'll laugh every minute. You'll scream every minute. That the plot is almost identical to LS&2SB's doesn't matter. Ritchie has oriented himself stylistically, and has mixed great photography, editing, story and acting into a highly entertaining 2 hour package.

Brad Pitt is a riot. The dog (!!!!) is a riot. The Russian guy is a riot.

See this film NOW !!!!!!!

*****

Frequency (2000)
Entertaining nonsense, 10 March 2001
7/10

===== Rating System: ***** Must see **** Very good *** I liked it, but you might hate it ** I hated it, but you might like it * Avoid ====> Get this. In 1969 John Sullivan's dad Jack (Dennis Quaid) died in some enormous fire. In 1999 John (James Caviezel) finds his dad's old radio and suddenly he gets in contact with his father again, because he's transmitting from 1969. This coincidence occurs because the Northern Lights, active in both 1969 and 1999, causes the time-space continuüm to become unstable. So unstable even that it transmits Jack's voice exactly 30 years in the future, and John's voice exactly 30 years to the past, for a solid 10 days. In these 10 days John can help his father to escape death, but as time goes by, things get more complicated...

If you can get past this moronic premise, you'll definitely have a great time with Frequency. There are spectacular moments (e.g. the opening 5 min.), the acting is convincing (Quaid has never been better) and there are magical special effects which service the story rather than to overblow it. There are some excellent time travelling tricks and the relationship between father and son is illuminating, even more because this sort of thing doesn't happen too often in modern Hollywood.

There are flaws, too. Jim Caviezel delivers a turn of unsurpassed uselessness, neither sympathetic nor emotional in a not-so delicate part.

The ending is terrible. If you've got the feeling the movie is over, better turn the tv off, so you won't have to face the most fake, stupid, offensive and downright implausible conclusions in years.

If you don't think too hard, and don't feel time-travelling is necessarily unacceptable, you will have a great time. Don't expect to see a realistic adventure, because you will be disappointed.

***


Page 1 of 8:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [Next]