hillary1 Reviews

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968)

Not as Good as Mary Poppins

[5/10 · 23 November 2006]

This is an OK movie for kids, but the story is clumsy (the car doesn't even appear until the movie is nearly half over) and the songs are absolutely horrible, especially when compared to Dick Van Dyke's masterpiece of a few years earlier, "Mary Poppins." I never could figure out why the studios of the '60s thought he could sing-clearly he's well suited to play parts like this but his voice is awful!! Sally Ann Howes-did I ever see her do anything else?-is serviceable if wooden in the Barbie doll character of a the local rich girl who falls in love with the pauper and becomes a mother figure for his two porcelain children. It isn't great but it's fun for the kids.

Wolf Creek (2005)

Bad, horrible, keep your money

[1/10 · 29 December 2005]

If you liked this movie, then that tells me things about you I really don't want to know. Man, there's no good horror anymore. What most directors don't seem to understand is that gore in and of itself is not scary-AT ALL. It is usually only revolting. Scary is a mood, a foreboding sense of menace. This can be achieved a lot of ways in a movie, but not usually by screams or buckets of blood. It certainly isn't achieved by dulling your senses to the point of coma over the first half of a movie, and then by completely overstimulating them the second. I was so completely disgusted I walked out before the end, which is apparently a good thing as I'm reading here. I'm upset I lost over an hour of my life watching this celluloid garbage. But then I don't like Quentin Tarantino either. I think every director who aspires to make REAL horror should have to memorize "The Exorcist," "Hallowe'en," and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" before putting themselves on a movie set.

The Producers (2005)

Mel is ALWAYS funny!

[6/10 · 27 December 2005]

You surely can count on Mel Brooks for a good time! Much of this movie is very stereotypical, completely over the top and very, very funny. The actors-especially Wil Ferrell in an inspired performance as a neo Nazi playwright-have been given free reign to do whatever they want and they make the most of it. The biggest problem with this movie is-it's a Broadway play on film. You felt like breaking into applause after the lavish song-and-dance numbers, as you would were you at the theater. Not that this is bad per se, but it just works better in live theater than it does in a movie. Nathan Lane stares into a silent camera at the end of his big number and it seems lonely. I enjoyed the movie and would recommend it, but I think the director needs to know next time to translate these things a little bit better for the screen.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

Good bridge

[7/10 · 28 May 2005]

Everybody p*sses and moans about the quality of acting in these prequel films. Hello people! Was there ever a WORSE actor to grace the screen than Mark Hamill?? "I'm Luke Skywalker, and I'm here to rescue you!" Hayden Christiansen would not be my choice to play Hamlet, and there are probably a lot of other young actors who could have more serviceably probed the depths of despair to which Anakin Skywalker falls, but he's certainly as good as Hamill was with a much more demanding role. I actually can see why Anakin would have grown disenchanted with the Jedi-they're portrayed as a snobby, elitist bunch of bureaucrats in all three films (the Sith really can't be any more annoying than these guys, they're like a bunch of IRS agents), not to mention incredibly WEAK-they all fall like dominoes the minute they are turned on. Where is all this incredible strength of the Force? What good is it if you can't count on it when the chips are down? The only Jedis really worth their mettle in this respect are Obi-Wan and Yoda. It serves them right that they all get wiped out. It's also hard to believe that emotional high-flying adventure seeker Obi-Wan Kenobi is transformed into the genteel, reclusive Ben Kenobi by the time A New Hope rolls around. Having said all that, I really enjoyed this film. It's of course visually appealing, and Anakin's manipulation from a desperate young man who wants to save his wife and his universe, who believes what he is doing is best for both, is quite powerful. Ian McDiarmid is the perfect Iago, the evil Sith Lord who really steals the show and gives a face and personality to the Emperor that we never saw in the original episodes. Without him, I don't think this film would have held my interest the way it did. Good movie, good bridge to the sequels. Star Wars is back.

Very Bad Things (1998)

Horrid...not even that good

[1/10 · 18 March 2005]

This is, bar none, one of the worst pieces of crap in American cinema. I mean, I have never seen anything like this and I don't mean in a good way. Not one funny thing happens in this movie. The assumption here is that people will find amusing situations that just are not-a prostitute impaling her head on a towel hook, a conveniently black man dying of a stab wound banging on a bathroom door for help, burying body parts in the desert, etc, etc... I can't imagine how anyone with a teaspoon of brains or any sense of common decency found this entertaining. Not only is it offensive, it is also unimaginably annoying due to the constant screaming that takes the place of any other type of dialogue. I gave it a 1 but only because that was as low as I could give it. This is the worst movie I've ever seen. I can't stress that enough. If you thought this was funny I'm not interested in knowing you, and you're probably a serial killer.

The Evil Dead (1981)

Oh my god

[1/10 · 18 March 2005]

I'd love to know why everyone posting on this site thinks this movie is so priceless. C'mon, people! It's stereotypically set in the dark in the middle of the woods, and anybody knows what happens in the dark in the middle of the woods, if you ever set around the fire at scout camp. Weird tapes wake up demons in the woods. Some idiot girl decides to go out into the woods to confront the demons and gets raped by a tree (yes, you read that right...there is no particular reason for this scene, by the way, except to give the obligatory T&A shot these movies are notorious for). The demons are not only out to rip out your innards, they are also determined to annoy the sh*t out of you before doing so. Otherwise, it's basically a whole lot of fake blood and strewn about body parts-not a bad thing in and of itself, but certainly does not elevate this to "good movie" status. Don't bother, unless you have some kind of weird branch fetish.

Shaun of the Dead (2004)

Over the top and very funny

[7/10 · 5 March 2005]

Since everyone in the world here has seen fit to describe the plot of this movie in excruciating detail, I'll skip all that and just let you know that this was the funniest movie I've seen in a long time. The understated, bemused reactions of Shaun and Ed to all that's going on around them at first ("Are they out there?" "No...Oh, wait, there they are") sets the stage for life-and-death struggle against the undead (or,as they will be known in Reality TV,the "Fun Dead") that will forever be remembered as Z-Day. There is no subtlety here-the zombies are everywhere and the noise is constant, which is one thing I might have changed. It gets quite tiring to watch all this activity over fully the last half of the film. Still, it's hilarious without being mean-spirited (even though folks being are being gobbled up and ripped apart throughout.) Who needs a superhero to save the world when we've got Shaun?

Terror in the Family (1996 TV Movie)

Bad movie, but...

[3/10 · 28 February 2005]

I remember watching this movie and thinking it was just typical made-for-TV trash, you know, the kind of crap that shows up regularly on "Lifetime" or the "We" channel. And it was-regurgitated TV cast, for the most part, hammy overreacting, and just a stupid script. But I do remember taking note of the young woman who played the abusive daughter in the film (BTW, you absolutely could not blame her for beating the crap out of her whiny, idiotic family-ugh!) I thought, "You know, she's pretty good-much better than her material." I guess I have a real eye for talent because the daughter is played by none other than Hilary Swank, the now two-time Oscar winner. She was good and the only reason I watched to the end. But don't bother watching it now, she's done a lot better than this!!

The Manchurian Candidate (2004)

Tepid

[5/10 · 13 February 2005]

I just saw this last night. It was OK, didn't have the shock value of the first one, and there were 'way too many plot holes and story lines that went nowhere for me to think this was a really good movie (it's hard for me to imagine a presidential candidate could drown a man and woman in three feet of water and nobody-no Secret Service agent, no journalist-is around to witness it, or that you would suddenly "notice" an implant under your skin 15 years after it was originally put there. What, did he never shower before? That's only two-there are many more examples!)Denzel Washington was as good as he could be, Meryl Streep was tedious and melodramatic from Scene 1, and Liev Schreiber was reduced to playing an essentially dead man. Not offensive, but not really that good, either.

A League of Their Own (1992)

Great baseball flick

[7/10 · 13 February 2005]

I loved this movie. There were some great lines ("There's NO CRYING in baseball!") and the cast was fabulous, even the minor characters (Garry Marshall is one of my all-time favorite character actors). Tom Hanks was brilliant, and one gets the feeling that if Madonna had stuck to comedy she'd be a huge box office draw by now. The only thing I didn't really care about was the "rivalry" going on between Dottie Hinson and her sister-Kip was one of the weakest characters in the film and too much attention was paid to her for her to be so underdeveloped.

If you haven't seen it, rent it sometime during the baseball season. It's almost as good as "The Natural" and better than "Field of Dreams."

The Santa Clause (1994)

Good sappy Christmas film

[23 December 2004]

I just saw this movie again after a few years away. It's an entertaining film. Tim Allen is essentially Tim Taylor in a Santa suit (it's a good thing he can live forever off "Home Improvement" residuals because he'll never be known for his range). But he fits the bill here, as a businessman slowly being transformed into St Nick despite desperate attempts not to. The only thing about it that bugged me was the way Santa was offed in the beginning-can Santa really die from falling off a roof? And wouldn't they be just a little bummed out at the North Pole-after all, Santa just got bumped off!! It seems like that could have been handled a little better, but overall a good Christmas movie, even with an attractive kid who doesn't make you want to go screaming from the room

The Glass Menagerie (1987)

Not so good

[21 November 2004]

I'm a wannabe writer who would sacrifice my firstborn for one tenth of the talent Tennessee Williams gave us over his amazing career as a playwright. I love Amanda and Blanche and Maggie and Baby Doll and all those incredible, erotic literary women he lovingly created and left to us to enjoy. However, this version just doesn't hit the mark. The main problem, really, is that all the actors are far TOO OLD. Karen Allen must be nearly 40 in this film, and really not believable as the sheltered, shy misfit of the play, and the same can be said of John Malcovich, who usually is one of my favorite actors. Joanne Woodward is good as Amanda, one of the more demanding female roles in cinema, but just lacks the ability to suck you in and make you pity her, although I think that has more to do with the lackluster supporting cast and direction than her acting ability. Not a good adaptation.

A Streetcar Named Desire (1951)

Definitive film

[21 November 2004]

Vivien Leigh was undoubtedly the Meryl Streep of her generation, and she takes what would be an impossible role for most actresses today (can you imagine this being done by Gwyneth Paltrow or Julia Roberts, two erstwhile Best Actresses? I didn't think so)and brings her to wide-eyed life on the screen. She owns every frame she is in; even when paired with leering and overtly sexual Brando (who is also astounding), the screen is hers. Another thing that works really well is the New Orleans setting-if you've never been there, it's 100% humidity every day of the year, even in January, and in August it's nearly unbearably steamy-quite a backdrop for a film about lies, sex, rape, and the descent of the heroine into psychosis. To me, this is a far better performance by Leigh than 15 years+ earlier in Gone With the Wind-Scarlett O'Hara is spoiled, petulant and ruthless, but nowhere near as layered and nuanced as Blanche DuBois. Hats off to Tennessee Williams for his creation of some of the finest female characters the screen and stage have ever known!

Top Secret! (1984)

Funny but not the best

[20 November 2004]

I saw this movie years and years ago-probably when it first came out, although I can't remember now-and just now saw it again. Let me say, this is a very funny movie most of the time, if you like stuff that's just plain ridiculous ("...and then we'll break away from the other cows..." ;winning a gunfire version of tic-tac-toe),but still, it doesn't measure up to the definitive ZAZ flick, the original "Airplane!" Val Kilmer looks ridiculously young, with typical '80s hair, and shows a real comedic flair here-he probably should have stuck with comedy. He then wouldn't have gone in the tank with that colossal "Island of Dr Moreau" disaster (or maybe that was a comedy?) Anyway, if you liked the Naked Gun and Airplane series, you'll like this one, too.

Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil (1997)

Disappointing

[15 November 2004]

Although the setting was beautiful-breathtaking really-and it was well casted (Kevin Spacey is always worth watching) I was very disappointed in the movie itself. I kept waiting for something to happen, for something to tie all the threads together and make this movie with so much potential work. The biggest problem in my eyes is that the relationship between Jim and Billy is not adequately fleshed out (in fact, Jude Law's Billy has very little to do in this movie), so the fact that he is murdered doesn't really have any impact-which is a mistake because it is the basis for the rest of the film. You just don't care. The Lady Chablis is interesting (I remember very clearly the full face shot early in the film where I realized-Gawd! That's a man!) but not nearly interesting enough to merit all that screen time, and, as is the case with most drag queens, the constant sexual innuendos get old quick. I don't recommend this film for the plain reason that it's boring, quite frankly. Not enough happens to make you care.

Just Shoot Me! (1997–2003)

Sometimes amusing

[10 November 2004]

I'm going to first preface this by saying I think David Spade is about as one dimensional and talentless as they come, and I thought his character did little more than suck up valuable air time in this show(although occasionally his ascerbic comments towards the incredibly self absorbed and vapid Nina were funny). I used to watch this show, I think because it came on in between Seinfeld and ER, but I didn't even know it had been cancelled until a few days ago. The best part of this show was probably the earnest Maya and the oversexed commitment phobe Elliott-I remember being very glad when she poured water over his head and kicked him out of her bed and life when he wouldn't marry her. Otherwise, I'm not sure how it went on as long as it did. George Segal was entertaining but predictable as the mogul Jack, and the rest of the cast, save Spade, were reliably entertaining but not a laugh riot or very cleverly written. Good time slots mean a lot, I guess.

The Ladykillers (2004)

South Portland

[7 November 2004]

I'm not actually a huge Coen brothers fan-I think a lot of their humor is just too cruel to be funny, and some of their situations are very contrived. However, they usually can be counted on to be original, and are often very entertaining. This film showcased all the things that are wrong with most Coen brothers movies, and here it's not balanced by anything funny or clever. The characters are not believable in the slightest, nor is the situation they find themselves in, and the ending is completely, utterly without merit. I'm sure Tom Hanks didn't get his usual $20 million, but thought a Coen brothers pic would be something very "artsy" and the chance to star in it worth the cut in pay. Well, he was wrong. The only good part in the film was the preacher scene in the Sunday service ("we done smote!") but the rest is banal and just not funny. Don't waste your time.

The Shining (1980)

Not King's book, but still...

[31 October 2004]

Being from Maine, I have a deep and abiding affection for Stephen King, although I'm not a great fan of his work and certainly not of movies based on his work. The menacing air and feeling of dread can't often easily be put to film, as "Pet Semetary" and "Christine" demonstrate. So, even though our favorite son might have been put off by this film, I think Kubrick did him a favor by altering some plot lines that might not have translated well to the screen-for example, the topiary; it probably would have just looked ridiculous on film. There are some horrid images in this movie-kids chopped up, blood running out of the walls, but for my money the most terrifying scene is when Wendy finds that her writer husband has barricaded himself, and threatened her, all the while writing the same words thousands and thousands of times (word has it that Kubrick actually sat down and typed these pages himself, which must have taken hours in the days before word processing!!) Shelly Duvall said she had to film this movie in a "constant state of panic" and was exhausted at the end of the filming. You can see why.

Babe: Pig in the City (1998)

That'll do, pig...

[2 October 2004]

I just saw this movie again and had forgotten how much I liked it. The set design was amazing, almost Disneyland-esque, and the animals spring to life before your eyes. I would be hard pressed to call it a comedy, and some of it was heartbreaking (like when the little dog says matter of factly, "my human tied me in a bag and threw me in the water", or when the old primate needs to get dressed before his escape) but it was very entertaining. Some of the old gang is there, but only for a brief time, so the most amazing thing about the movie is that it doesn't rely on the old formulaic to make the audience care about the pig again-brand new setting, new characters, new situations. Did we get that in "Spiderman 2", or "Goldmember?" No. Good movie with lots of helpless animals that get saved in the end. What else do you need??

All in the Family (1971–1979)

Goundbreaking in 1971

[3 September 2004]

I remember watching first runs of this show as a young child. My mother hated it, because of "all the screaming." This was a very important show and the cast and crew are to be commended for taking on very important and pertinent social issues during an already turbulent time-race relations, abortion, gun violence, and violence against women were only a few of the topics broached in the long run of this program. This was also the first show on TV that suggested the characters actually had a sex life. As for the person who commented that the show portrayed only the good side of left wing politics, I submit that isn't true. Archie was presented as an ultra conservative, bigoted, over the top stereotype, (Carroll O'Connor's portrayal of him was brilliant, and a lot of today's GOP devotees have apparently intentionally modeled themselves after him) and Rob Reiner's Mike Stivic was an uptight, overeducated snob with no real direction. No flattering portrayals on either side. What it did expose was the ignorance permeating American society-interesting too that it was set in Queens, NY instead of the deep South-that you can still hear coming out of the mouths of the likes of Jerry Falwell and our own president, albeit the language has been prettied up. A great, very important, and not to mention HILARIOUS show!

Exorcist: The Beginning (2004)

Why oh why oh why...

[1/10 · 21 August 2004]

Why is Reny Harlin allowed in Hollywood? Whywhywhywhywhy? Has no one seen "Cliffhanger" or "Cutthroat Island?" Why do they let him NEAR a movie set, much less be in charge of one?? It blows my fragile little mind! This is the WORST movie I have seen in my life (well, maybe "Deadly Prey" or "Autumn in New York" was worse)The gross-out scenes were so over the top as to be completely laughable and only served to point up the fact that in the original that scared the crap out of you, the grossest scene was Regan spewing green vomit all over poor Father Karras. They didn't NEED no stinkin' crows or hyenas or maggots to make the point. It doesn't even add anything-I mean nothing-to story of Father Merrin's encounter with Regan years later, which I suppose was a loose reason for the plot. Uncomfortable and ludicrous, yes; scary, absolutely not. I saw it for free-monetarily, although it still cost me time out of my life that I can't get back-so I'm at least not out much. But some films are so bad they should be considered crimes for which you could go to jail for participating in them, and this is one of them. Save yourself from this mess. Go to the video store and see the original if you need a fix.

Braindead (1992)

Interesting...

[1 August 2004]

I'm not quite sure how the Academy overlooked the early Peter Jackson to bestow on him the ultimate director's honor for Lord of the Rings. It doesn't seem like anything you could do later on could make up for something like this (or "Meet the Feebles", where puppets bleed). Now, having said that, this is actually a very entertaining movie-flesh eaten off living souls, exposing their still-beating hearts; a hero who can't get a foothold on the bloody floor (sliding around in the mess like Wyle E. Coyote) so he hops his way out by using heads the way one would stones in a raging river; and cannibalization of the highest order. Certainly held my interest but I'm glad I didn't pay to see it. It belongs on a cable channel late at night (which is actually where I saw it) instead of somewhere normal people could be exposed to it.

Spider-Man 2 (2004)

Too little

[5/10 · 31 July 2004]

All superheroes are tortured souls, torn between their yearning to fully join the human race and their overarching commitment to duty (kind of like the British Royal Family). Superman, Batman, the Hulk-all of them modern Shakesperean tragic heroes. Spidey's no different. You know, though, I didn't care too much for this movie, and I'll tell you why-at least half the reason you go to these flicks is to examine the villian. Most of the time, they're much more interesting (although not much different) than the hero. Driven by personal pain (see: Penguin, Joker, Darth Vader), they become an image what our hero could have become. Here, we actually have very little insight into the character of the villian, Doc Ock-who is actually being controlled by some mechanical arms. Yes, he lost his wife in the melee, but there's no character development, no real personalization of the war between he and Spiderman. It's just flat. And I don't really care about the relationship between Spiderman and MJ-part of the superhero's appeal is that he's always on the outside looking in, and there's usually a beautiful woman, i.e., Lois Lane, who symbolizes that. I'm more interested in the relationship between Spidey and Harry, or Spidey and the world. Go back to the roots of superhero lore and the next installment should be much more entertaining.

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)

Tree-hugging leftist liberal that I am...

[10/10 · 7 July 2004]

I make no apologies for my politics or for the fact that I think Michael Moore is a genius. He shows us the unsanitized aspects of the war that some people would rather keep hidden (charred bodies hanging from the bridge, screaming and suffering Iraqi civilians, our own soldiers revelling in the destruction they've inflicted) and raises some serious questions about where "our" president's loyalties lie and to whom the administration is beholden (it ain't us!) Now, having said that, I am aware that Mr. Moore is a master of the insinuation and perhaps false impression-without uttering a false word-but then again, the footage speaks for itself. When George Bush stands there and smugly tells the outrageously wealthy white-tie audience, "You're my base" he is simply revealing himself for what he is and what he cares about, and he needed no embellishment from Michael Moore. It is what it is, folks. No matter what else you may think he is-activist, traitor, whatever-Michael Moore is a superb storyteller who has shown a lot of growth as a filmmaker and entertainer. Give 'em hell, Mike!

This Is Spinal Tap (1984)

My love gun's loaded and she's in my sights...

[5 July 2004]

I am of the belief that Christopher Guest is a genius, and "This is Spinal Tap" is probably the best example of that. It's full of quotables-all I've got to do is look at my significant other and say, "He's the patron saint of quality footwear" or, "We're not going to do f-ing Stonehenge!" and we collapse in hysteria. Rob Reiner also made a lot of good movies after his days of playing the Meathead were over, and I've always missed him in other Guest productions. Also,the music in this film is actually pretty good; if you don't listen too closely to the lyrics and ignore the titles, you might almost think you were listening to a bona fide band! This was the first of the genre for Guest, although I'm willing to bet "A Mighty Wind" will probably be the last. Although still very, very funny, it had kind of lost it's "quirky" appeal by that time.