Reviews

18 ReviewsOrdered By: Date
Dreamgirls (2006)
8/10
Superior Performances by All
3 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Dreamgirls is a movie that explores the highs and lows of the singing business that parallels the rise and fall of Motown. It features a cast that screams "black star power," and fortunately the movie isn't carried by its star power alone.

First off is the plot of the movie itself. It flows smoothly with the musical numbers actually being a part of the plot; enhancing it, without stopping any of the action, which is the sign of a good latter-day musical. The only flaw in this section is that it's all too short. There wasn't any time to show any of the characters' growth (or in some cases, downfall), but seeing the events unfold will definitely capture the imagination.

Most important is the performances: Jamie Foxx does a fantastic job of acting and singing; it may not be Oscar-worthy, but he definitely didn't phone this performance in. The dubious nature of his character makes it difficult for the viewer to want to either side with him, or despise him.

Beyonce shows immense potential as an actress. While her character is obviously based on Diana Ross, Beyonce takes the role and makes it her own. It will be interesting to see what she puts forth in the future.

Most people my age will remember that a long time ago, Eddie Murphy made a record album. While we tend to make fun of it nowadays, his performance is nothing to laugh at. He makes the most out of his character who wants yet another shot to be at the top again (perhaps a parallel for his career?).

Last, but definitely not least, is Jennifer Hudson. Now, I'm proud to say that I've never watched an episode of American Idol, and I didn't hear until after I've seen it that Ms. Hudson lost somewhere close to the end. That being said, she definitely doesn't sound like a loser to me. She takes her role and gives it everything she's got, which goes to show that Simon Cowell is not the end-all be-all when it comes to talent.

The set design and camera-work is nothing to behold, it's very straightforward, but there is nothing that distracts from the overall product either.

Overall, this is a movie that's worth paying full-price admission to, highly recommended!
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Hard Candy (2005)
9/10
A Mind-Job That's Worth a Look
11 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is a twist on the old warnings about meeting people that you chat with online, a twist that not even Alfred Hitchcock could see coming.

"Hard Candy" begins with two people meeting online for the first time after chatting for several weeks. It turns out that the meeting is more than what the guy bargained for.

The story is carried by the acting of both Ellen Page and Patrick Wilson. Despite the fact that his character is a pedophile, Wilson makes him believable and sympathetic. Page does an excellent job in shifting gears from seemingly sweet and innocent, to cold, calculating, intelligent and vindictive.

If there are any weak points in the movie, it would have to be with the camera work. Some of it can be disorienting, but not too much that it gets to be annoying.

Overall, this was a strong script, carried by strong acting and even stronger direction. Definitely worth a full-price rental.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Mazes and Monsters (1982 TV Movie)
3/10
I am actually speechless after seeing this movie
1 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I caught this movie at a small screening held by members of my college's gaming club. We were forewarned that this would be the "reefer madness" of gaming, and this movie more than delivered.

Tom Hanks plays Robbie, a young man re-starting his college career after "resting" for a semester. What we, the viewer, find out as the movie progresses, is that Robbie was hopelessly addicted to a role-playing game called "Mazes and Monsters," a game that he gets re-acquainted with after a gaming group recruit him for a campaign.

This movie is laughable on many, many levels. One scene features the group "gaming by candlelight," which is probably the best way I can describe it. While I'm sure that this was meant to be "cultish" in some way, as most gamers know, it's horribly inaccurate. Most role-play sessions are done in well-lit rooms, usually over some chee-tohs and a can of soda.

The acting, while not Oscar-caliber, isn't gut-wrenchingly awful either. This is one of Tom Hanks's first roles, and Bosom Buddies and Bachelor Party were still a year or two over the horizon. The supporting cast, while not very memorable, still hand forth decent performances.

Mainly the badness lies in the fact that it was a made-for-TV movie that shows the "dangers of gaming" Worth a view if you and your friends are planning a bad movie night.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Last Holiday (2006)
5/10
A Decent Date Movie
14 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Queen Latifah plays this shy, introverted woman who just found out that she only has three weeks to live. Realizing she doesn't have all that much time left, she decides to pack up everything she has and spend her last days at a lush European resort.

That's all you really need to know about "Last Holiday." Queen Latifah does a very good job at creating a sympathetic character in Georgia, but as it was shown time and time again, star power can only do so much in a movie. Despite a lot of the hokey elements, like Latifah learning to snowboard for the first time and looking like a pro, this movie serves out its purpose to provide an hour and 30 minutes worth of escapism, which, despite a lot of "hardcore" film buffs might say, isn't necessarily a bad thing.

This is not a bad movie by any means, it's just not a great movie. On my hierarchy of movies, this is a matinée kind of movie that you would take your date to, in order to kill the afternoon.

Grade: C+
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
A Masterpiece
6 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I remember when this movie first came out in the theater, and I had a chance to catch it. Back then, it was considered a vast departure for Jim Carrey, seeing as he's only been in comedies such as the Ace Ventura movies. In retrospect, "The Truman Show" was only a harbinger of the kind of acting he could do. But it wasn't his movie alone, Andrew Niccol's script and Peter Weir's direction and the rest of the cast that make this movie work on so many levels.

One level in which "The Truman Show," along with its counterpart, "Ed TV" works, is that both movies pre-date the whole "reality TV" craze by a good 2 or 3 years. Oh, we had "The Real World" but that was the extent of it...this was before MTV was milking its incarnations for all its worth, and definitely before "Survivor," "The Simple Life," and those "Celebreality" shows on VH1. The scenes in which people react to the things Truman does and hang on his every movement is no different than how people tune in for the next episode of "Survivor" waiting on who will be "voted off the island." Another theme that is evident in the movie is the desire for absolute control as shown in the character of Christof. He has structured Truman's world as to who could or couldn't talk to him, using any means necessary to keep him on the island, and ultimately losing. While it seems that Christof has a connection to Truman, he is merely a means to an end, which is a televised life, from cradle to grave.

One thing that I need to point out again is Jim Carrey's acting. "The Truman Show" is his first serious role, departing from the sight-gag movies of his earlier career. His acting is so reserved, and yet, there are funny moments of his, but it doesn't break from the tone of the movie or his overall character. Everyone was caught by surprise in this apparent 180, especially film critic duo Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert. They were so impressed by Carrey that they publicly apologized to him for panning "Ace Ventura: Pet Detective." Overall, this movie, I like to fall under the category one of the best films ever made. On my hierarchy of movies, I would put this under "Worth full price/add this to your DVD collection." Grade: A+
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Saved! (2004)
8/10
Very Enjoyable
14 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Growing up in a predominantly baptist town, I've been through many experiences in dealing with people who thought they were better than everyone else simply because of what they believed. I was more or less ostracized because I didn't fall in to many peoples' belief system, and I found that my real friends fell with the outcasts; some of these friendships I still maintain long since graduating High School (going on 8 years as of this writing).

Having said that, I find "Saved!" to be a reminder of what those days can be like (however exaggerated as it may be), and if one looks past the obvious satire of Christian culture, one would find a nice message of acceptance.

At the film's start, we're introduced to Mary (played by Jena Melone of "Donnie Darko" fame) who gives us a brief overview of her upbringing through narration and flashbacks. Her world is shaken when her boyfriend confesses that he might be gay. After having sex with him to turn him straight (unsuccessfully), Mary ends up pregnant and scared. After Hilary Faye (Mandy Moore) kicks her out of the Christian Jewels (a "girl-gang for Jesus" as the narration puts it) for having a borderline nervous breakdown during a prayer session, Mary finds new friends in Hilary Faye's paraplegic brother Roland (Macaulay Culkin in a comeback role) and his wild-child girlfriend Cassandra (Eva Amurri).

Where this film works is the exchanges between the actors. The casting was flawless for the feel of a movie like this. Also, I have to give a hand to Director and Screenwriter Brian Dannelly for the dialogue, which Macaulay Culkin uses to its full potential seen here:

Cassandra: There's only one reason Christian girls come down to the Planned Parenthood...

Roland: She's planting a Pipe Bomb!?

The script itself is very well written, especially for a first-timer, but that's not to say that it's without its flaws, which I'll get to later.

Also I have to give kudos to everyone who was involved with this movie for taking a huge risk. There are many Christians who take their faith dead seriously, and any attempt at satire is nothing short of blasphemy, but as Kevin Smith said in the introduction to Dogma "Even God has a sense of humor...look at the Duckbill Platypus." Where this film doesn't work is probably the last 30 minutes, in which Mary tries to be the voice of reason. It just felt too forced and preachy, and it seemed obvious that the screenwriters were running out of steam. There was a better way to convey the message here.

All in all, this is an enjoyable movie for those who can stand Christian satire. In my hierarchy of movies, I would rank this as either rent or buy.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Crash (I) (2004)
10/10
One of the most powerful movies I've ever seen...
11 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
...and that's saying a lot.

I managed to catch this movie with some friends who brought it on DVD, and I must say that this is a very intense viewing experience. For those of you who are looking for a blow-by-blow summary of the movie, all I can really say is that I can't explain it; you really have to see it for yourself, and that's to be taken literally. All of the characters and plot lines are so intricately interwoven together that it takes a flowchart to truly understand it without it being seen.

This isn't to say that "Crash" isn't without its flaws. Some of the twists seem a bit far-fetched to me, such as a racist cop who feels a woman up ending up rescuing her the very next day, or another cop trying to intervene on a black screenwriter's behalf, and that's only two small parts out of over 40! One last thing about this movie; no film has ever driven me to tears before; "Crash" is the first. And I am a very hard man to drive to tears.
6 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
If you are a liberal arts major, this movie is for you!
9 August 2005
A man visits a rather unique detective agency in order to find out whether or not his encounters with a Nigerian refugee are coincidences or not, and gets something entirely different.

This is the backdrop of I *heart* Huckabees, probably one of the most unique movies I've ever seen. The movie seems to be a huge statement on the argument of existentialism versus nihilism. One could take most of the dialog from the film and transplant it into a coffee shop.

As odd as the film is, there isn't really anything that doesn't fall into place, you leave the movie feeling pretty satisfied.

I can't really say all that much, because you really need to see it for yourself; this isn't a warning against spoilers, that's to be taken literally. There is so much in this movie that makes you scrunch up your face for a bit, and then, you go, OH. All in all, an enjoyable experience.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Rock Star (2001)
6/10
What do I say about a movie that is, by definition, bad, and yet, I like it anyway?
9 August 2005
I say, "best nothing I ever spent," that's what! A word of explanation: I went to Hasting's to take an unrelated movie back, which was really scratched, explained that some scenes didn't even play, and they gave me a rain check for a free rental, and I came across Rock Star.

Mark Whalburg plays a lead singer of a cover (or a "tribute") band and gets the chance of a lifetime when he's called forth to replace the lead singer in the band that he idolizes. Not much to it, really...it kind of speeds through the whole story, which is a good thing. If it got bogged down in the whole clichés of rock-and-roll, it probably wouldn't be as enjoyable.

Acting was pretty much solid, nothing too much to complain about. Not too shabby from the guy who directed "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure." Good for a rental, especially a free one!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Really Messes With Your Head... Kubrick Would be Proud
1 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
My friends and I joke that this movie should take the place of the Dare program, but with the intense visuals, engaging story and characters, and the last 15 minutes, I can't help but to wonder.

The story revolves around four individuals (Jared Leto, Marlon Wayans, Jennifer Connoly, and Ellyn Burnstyn) who become victims of their own addictions (Heroin, Cocaine, and Diet Pills), and thus begins the downward spiral. I'm not going to go into great detail about the spiral, because, quite frankly, it's not something I want to think about.

The combination of great acting with superb directing is what places this film among some of the best ever committed to celluloid. What particularly surprised me was Marlon Wayans; having only seen him in dumb comedies (Scary Movie 1 & 2, Don't be a Menace to South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the 'Hood), he actually proves his acting chops in this role. This isn't to diminish the other actors, though. After all, "Requiem" is an ensemble effort.

Arronofsky really takes care in building up the characters before breaking them down, and by the end, you're left with nothing but a requiem.

On a side note: I've sat through slasher flicks, I've seen my share of ghost stories and psychological thrillers, but this is the only movie to date that has ever given me nightmares. If that doesn't say anything about a movie, I don't know what does.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Most Triumphant!
1 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Long Ago, I caught this movie on cable, and have since regulated it to my VCR. I don't know what happened to the tape, but just for the sake of nostalgia (and because I had a friend who has never seen it before) I checked it out on DVD and was pleasantly surprised again.

For those of you who don't know, Rufus (George Carlin), an agent from a future Utopia is sent back in time to ensure that Bill (Alex Winter) and Ted (Keanu Reeves) pass their history report so that they can form their band, Wyld Stallyns, and bring peace to the universe.

There are some very cheesy elements to this film, such as the pair acting like total dimwits (Joan of Arc was NOT Noah's Wife), and the aspect of bringing figures from history to our own time is completely unbelievable, but the cheesiness is what makes the movie enjoyable. it doesn't take itself very seriously, and it has a pretty good running length.

"Bill and Ted" spawned forth an animated show (with the actors from the movie doing the voices, also recommended), a live action show (somewhat enjoyable, but you could tell the franchise was running out of steam) and an enjoyable sequel that wrapped everything up nicely. Overall, a good way to kill an afternoon.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Stealth (2005)
5/10
Decent Action Movie That Lasts 30 Minutes Too Long
31 July 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Three ace pilots have been picked by the US Navy in "the near future" to combat terrorism. However, there is a catch, the addition to their team is an artificially intelligent prototype plane.

This is pretty much the base plot of "Stealth," and honestly, that's all you really need to know. I didn't bother learning any of the characters' names, because they aren't really necessary. There are a whole lot of things in this movie that aren't really necessary, such as a scene that takes place in the Philippines, or three naval pilots in full uniform, dancing in an underground club. Having one of the pilots turn on a dime from hating the machine to being buddies with it is unnecessary. Having the machine blast the same song over and over again so that the enemies can hear is unnecessary.

Jamie Foxx's acting is pretty decent, but I could tell that he was just doing this for the paycheck... I've seen you in Ray, Jamie! I know you can do better! Also, without getting too spoilery, people who will come to see Jamie Foxx will be slightly disappointed.

Normally I gauge movies by the number of times I look at my watch. Not looking at my watch at all means the movie has my full, undivided attention. Looking at my watch once means the movie is slightly off in certain areas. Twice, and the movie is in trouble. I not only looked at my watch three times, but I entertained the idea of getting up and going to the bathroom, something I tend to reserve for movies that are truly awful, which this one isn't.

There are lots of explosions, there are lots of cool dogfight scenes, the planes look cool enough for any kid that wants it as a toy, but all this alone do not a great movie make. All in all, it just has a lot of style and not a lot of substance. My advice to any serious moviegoer is to save the $7-10, wait for it to come on HBO, and spend that money on Chinese take-out.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
I'll give them a B for effort
19 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I caught this movie on one of the many channels I had back when I had digital cable, and I have to admit, it was rather enjoyable...the sex scenes aren't that bad either.

Clichéd? Yes. Stereotypical? Absolutely! I guess the movie's major flaw was trying too hard to portray everyone in the GLBT lifestyles in a positive light. Note to the filmmakers; when you're making a film with a GLBT audience in mind, you're preaching to the choir! What works: The sex scenes: yes, I'll admit it, I'm a horny mo-fo. Normally, I'm one of those few guys who really doesn't enjoy girl-on-girl action, but all I have to say, is DAAAAMMMMNNN! That has some scenes I wouldn't mind trying with my own girlfriend! What doesn't work: A lot of the plot elements can get a little hokey, say, for example, the angry misandristic lesbian beating up on the poor transgendered person. Or the group of Nazi Skinheads who get their jollies beating people up anyways. I guess they had to come up with some conflict, as if one of the central characters trying to hide the relationship from her mom isn't conflict enough!

But I digress..."Better than Chocolate" is not supposed to be a thinking-person's drama, you're not supposed to dissect the plot and visuals to find the movie's meaning. That's what films are for (there is a difference!). It's just something to make you feel good at the end, which it does for me...in more ways than one!
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
God help me, I actually like this movie
1 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
When I first saw the trailers for "Divine Secrets" (forgive me if I choose not to use the full title), the two words that came to my mind was "chick flick" and, like most guys, avoided it like the plague. I finally got to see it at a friend's house, because she offered, and I was willing to give most movies a chance. In the end I found myself pleasantly surprised.

For those who may not know, "Divine Secrets" centers around the relationship between Siddalee Walker (Sandra Bullock) and her mother Vivi (Ellen Burstyn). Sidda is a famous writer/playwright who makes some disparaging comments about Vivi in a magazine interview. Vivi takes extreme offense to Sidda's comments and a small war between the two ensue. It's then up to the "Ya-yas" (Vivi's long-time friends) to show Sidda the other side of her mother and repair the mother-daughter bond before it's too late.

The Mother-Daughter relationship is a little "Joy Luck Club" and the southern dysfunctional family is straight out of "Prince of Tides" but "Divine Secrets" is nowhere near as serious as the previous two titles. This isn't to say that "Divine Secrets" isn't without its serious moments. Slight warning to those whose families come on the dysfunctional side: there are parts in this movie that will make you slightly uncomfortable if not cringe. But, as with good storytelling, the light and dark moments balance each other out.

Overall, on my movie hierarchy scale, "Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood" is good enough for a Rental, or purchase on the cheap-o rack at Hasting's. Good Acting+Good Storytelling = good movie.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Catwoman (2004)
2/10
It's a bad movie, but not the train wreck I was expecting... or hoping for.
20 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I remember way back when Batman Returns was released, that warner bros. was planning to make a catwoman spin-off movie. This was back in 1992, when the "Batman" franchise was still going very strong. In 2004, a good 12 years later, and a good 6 or seven years after the franchise was demolished by Joel Schumaker, the people got their catwoman movie, and most of them shouted "what the...?" As most of you know, Halle Berry plays Patience Phillips, a very shy mousy woman who works at some cosmetics company in an unnamed city. About 10-15 minutes into the movie, she gets bumped off, gets CPR from a cat, gets cat-like powers and turns into Catwoman. Is she a hero, or is she a criminal, yadda, yadda, yadda...we get the idea.

I'll get to the first order of business: the acting. Fairly over-the-top, but not gut-wrenchingly awful. Halle did do a decent job, but I (like many other movie fans) would wonder why she would so something like this just after winning an Oscar. Friends of mine speculated that she turned into a prima donna and started demanding movies where she gets top billing and dominant screen time, which makes sense, but something tells me that she was so hungry for it that she didn't exactly take the time to read the script.

Next thing: the visuals. First of all, they spent over $100 million on special effects, and it shows. All the swooping shots of "the city" really looked CGI, not to mention all the parts where catwoman jumps around. They're trying to pull an "agent smith" and try to make every Catwoman moment look badass. Sorry, guys, but I'm just not convinced. Also, the constant scene cuts (I estimated about 3-4 cuts per second) are very confusing, if not disorienting.

Now I come to my biggest gripe: the COMPLETE and utter LACK OF REGARD for the SOURCE MATERIAL! Many comic book fans (along with some lay people) know that Catwoman is a DC comics character, a very significant member of Batman's rogues gallery. In the comic, her name is Selina Kyle, an orphan who was once a hooker but turned to burglary instead. She hasn't given up on crime completely, but most of the time she works with Batman towards a common good. She has no super-powers, save for an amazing natural athletic and gymnastic ability. I guess the studio execs, however, didn't think this was flashy enough to get as many people into their seats as possible. So instead, they decide to make her have cat-like powers handed down to her from a mystical cat-god. When I finally heard about this, I, and many other comic fans were less than happy. We felt that this would not only be a box office failure, but it would hurt the chances of resurrecting the Batman franchise. The movie did fail miserably, but hopefully, there is "Batman Begins" which will be released this coming June, maybe warner will begin making halfway decent DC comics adaptations again.

Over the past couple of years, we've seen some really good movies in general and some kick-ass comic book movies in particular. Unfortunately, for every movie like "Spider-Man 2" and "X2: X-Men United" there comes crap like "Catwoman" to feed the masses who don't know any better. Some people actually like that, and more power to them. I'm just glad that movies like these are the exception, rather than the norm.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
10/10
BETTER! THAN! THE! FIRST! (some spoilers)
28 July 2004
I was excited when the first Spidey movie was finally going to be released, seeing as I was waiting for it to see theaters since I was 12 years old. Once I finally saw it, I was rather satisfied. There were a few flaws, I will admit, but overall, it was still a dream come true. I believed that Spider-man re-defined the standard of what comic book movies should be.

Now that I've seen "Spider-Man 2," I was beyond floored! Whatever flaws that were apparent in the first movie have been rectified. The story was fantastic, it was almost like it was a living comic book. You can definitely suspend and disbelieve in this one.

Tobey Maguire has also become more comfortable in his role as Peter Parker. He's just as I envisioned him to be, a normal guy who happens to have superpowers, and is trying to maintain a semblance of a normal life.

Kirsten Dunst is once again fabulous as Mary Jane Watson; my only complaint about her is since she liked the red wig in the first movie, she tried dying her whole hair red in the second, and it really didn't work...she looks more strawberry blonde (I know, I know, I'm nitpicking).

The choice of Alfred Molina as Doctor Octopus was fantastic; Doc Ock is my favorite Spider-Man villain, and he did the character justice.

Most improved award goes to James Franco. His Harry Osborn seemed a bit wooden in the first movie for my taste; this time around, he's a lot looser, and his ability has improved drastically! I can't wait to see what Sam Raimi has in store for him come Spider-Man 3.

The supporting cast was just as good as in the first movie. Bill Nunn as Robbie Robertson, J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson, Rosemary Harris as Aunt May Parker. I loved every minute of them on screen.

What really floored me was seeing Willem Dafoe make an appearance as Norman Osborn's ghost! For those familiar with the Spider-Man comics, you all know how much of an influence Norman Osborn has had even after his Death. Which brings me to...

Sam Raimi. If I ever get a chance to meet him, I want to give him a hug. He is the best example of getting a director who knows the source material (are you listening Warner Brothers?). He knows that if you stay loyal to the story, the moviegoers will come.

Spider-Man 2 is now the third example of a comic book movie surpassing its original; the other two examples are Superman 2 and X2: X-Men United. It's also earning its honor of being called not only one of the best comic movies, but rather one of he best movies ever made!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Pleasantville (1998)
9/10
An IMMENSELY underrated film!
23 March 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I managed to catch "Pleasantville" when it was aired on TNT, and even though I only saw the last half of it, I liked what I saw immediately. When the movie was commercially released, I didn't think a whole lot of it, thinking that it looked cookie-cutter, and now I feel that I've missed out, and have since brought it on DVD.

I'm not going to go into the storyline synopsis, since so many of you probably already have seen it from the movie's main page. I will, however, give examples of how this movie works.

First of all, the special effects; this is a movie where the special effect enhance the story instead of them taking the place of the story. The mixture of black-and-white with color is absolutely remarkable. In my opinion, the characters changing from black-and-white to color is attributed to them breaking away from their normal "routines" and becoming more of a "three-dimensional" kind of person. For example, Reese Whitherspoon's character is promiscuous and not intrested in doing much with her life,but when she starts to read and study, she realizes that there is more to life than the next date. Same with Tobey Maguire's character; when he gets sucked into that TV world, he's pretty introverted, not very quick to socialize. As the days go by, he in a sense is responsible for instigating the rebellious nature of the other teenagers, and it hits a peak when he introduces violence to the town, even though he's defending his TV mother. It's at this point that he realizes that "it's not supposed to be perfect...it's not 'supposed to be' anything."

Another big aspect that makes "Pleasantville" work is the character development. In a sense, all of the characters are major stereotypes of themselves, but as the movie goes on, each character tends to become self-aware. Several of the black-and-white characters are fighting so hard to keep the status quo that the characters in color are starting to become repressed (a rather obvious reference to segregation).

There are several other parallels in the story (garden of eden, kristallnacht, etc), there are too many to mention in this one review. I'd just like to conclude by saying that I really recommend this movie to anyone who would be intrested in a good story and not just Hollywood pandering. It's not the perfect movie in the world, but definately one that people should take a cue from.

Grade: A
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Drumline (2002)
7/10
Finally, a movie that puts band people in a positive light!
10 June 2003
For years, in the movies, people in band were seen as immensely geeky (a little "Lucas" or "American Pie" anyone) Then comes a movie like "Drumline" to set people straight. Even though it's set at a black college, EVERY person who has enjoyed the band experience can relate to this movie. From getting up at ungodly hours in the morning so you can go practice, to dealing with the jitters that come when halftime starts. Not to mention the plot, albeit a tad formula, isn't really that bad! I hope filmmakers will get a clue and realize that not all band people are mouth-breathing dorks!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this