pachl Reviews

Chappie (2015)

Overall the worst movie I have ever seen

[1/10 · 9 April 2015]

I take no pleasure in writing a negative review. I'd much rather rave about a movie that pleasantly surprised me.

In the movie, Tropic Thunder, the term "full retard" became a trendy catch-phrase. I don't want to sound like a whiny, semi-literate malcontent, but while sitting through this absolute bomb of a movie, the one recurring phrase that kept passing through my mind was, "they went full retard."

Chappie, the robot, gains sentience. He can think for himself, though he starts out like a child that must be taught everything. This is the core of the movie. Clearly, the writers meant to create a sweet metaphor about the tribulations of growing up, but what they created was two hours of pure cinematic torture. The acting, plot, and action sequences were often cringe inducing, not to mention laughably illogical and ridiculous. I seriously can't imagine how anyone could enjoy this movie.

Chappie is taught by Johannesburg gangsters, who talk about as authentically as Keanu Reeves accent in Dracula (read: abominably). This was one of the most irritating parts of the movie, but add to this the cartoonish, buffoonish characters and the whole thing was simply a misguided mess.

After one hour I didn't think I could last till the end. I literally couldn't even sit still in my seat, but I toughed it out, hoping something at the end would happen to redeem the movie. Sadly, it did not.

I won't even bother writing about the plot. It's full of holes. The acting is generally so absurd it goes beyond intentional satire. I pity the great actress Sigourney Weaver who somehow got roped into this mess.

But most of all, I pity everyone who sat through this movie.

John Wick (2014)

A rebirth for Keanu Reeves as an actor

[7/10 · 24 October 2014]

Let's be blunt: film snobs, along with many regular movie-going fans, think that Keanu Reeves' acting is, to put it mildly, a bit wooden. For those who thought he was a mediocre actor at best should see John Wick. It's proof Reeves has drastically improved as an actor.

I read a "professional" review in which the film critic still lambasted Reeves' "robotic demeanor". That is absolute nonsense. I was so intrigued when I saw the trailer for this movie. Immediately it struck me that Keavu Reeves seemed to absolutely own this role. But that was just short outtakes. Could he really be that good in the whole movie?

Easy answer: yes.

John Wick is a revenge thriller. He's emotionally wounded from the untimely death of his wife from some undisclosed illness. The son of a Russian crime boss makes the tragic mistake of attacking John Wick and killing his dog. We have no idea up to this point that John Wick is legendary as a killer. Ruthless and skilled, everyone fears him.

No apology is sufficient for what was done to him so he embarks on a mission to kill the crime boss' son. As always happens in movies of this genre, John Wick is always outnumbered by ten to one, and yet he kills everyone in his path to revenge and keeps moving forward.

Although at the end there was some dopiness to the plot, Keanu Reeves was stellar. He was focused, not wooden. He was dynamic, not robotic.

We've seen a younger Keanu Reeves do comedy. He had some great successes. We saw him in Dracula, and wish we hadn't. We've seen him in near-misses like A Walk In The Clouds, that failed in no way due to him (he was excellent) but in cheap, sappy plot points that tried to bring an emotional closure.

Now we see him clearly back in the game. I would love to see Keanu Reeves do something risky now; maybe take a chance on a comedy. It's clear he is up to it. His reputation as an actor should greatly improve after this rock solid performance.

Her (2013)

Really hated the main character

[4/10 · 6 April 2014]

Although I am giving this film only four stars, that is based far more on the enjoyment factor of the film, not the writing or directing.

My main problem with this film was Joaquin Phoenix's character. The way he is played is so annoying and hard to identify with. There is a scene where he goes on a date with a woman who seems to be out of his league. He's constantly annoying, poorly dressed; similar to a character Woody Allen might play, but without the mirth and whimsy.

The woman turns out to be a bit of a needy nutcase. When he's not ready to immediately commit to her on the first date, she tells him "You're weird".

BINGO! That's the central problem with this whole movie. Had it been played as someone more suave and normal, instead of some emotionally rocky NYC type, it could have been far more enjoyable. But over two hours of a bunch of emotionally damaged, fairly neurotic people who can't even figure out how to be happy is just too much, sorry.

In short, I think the problem here was interpretation. I can imagine this story in which the main character isn't so much of a headcase. It's hard to get into a movie when you far prefer the "character" of the computer operating system!

The movie at least ends well. The story, in and of itself, is really interesting, but I hated the execution of it all. There was far too much introspection and neurotic people figuring out all sorts of ways why they can't have an enjoyable life and relationships. It was like taking a neurotic New Yorker and putting his neurosis on steroids.

Enough is enough.

P.S. I am always interested if anyone reads these reviews. If you read mine, please indicate if it was helpful to you.

Pompeii (I) (2014)

Definitely not a bad way to spend 2 hours

[7/10 · 25 March 2014]

First of all, anyone giving this film one or two stars is being completely unfair, especially to this genre of big spectacle type movies. Certainly one may argue that some of the dialogue is cheesy, some of the plot lines a little too predictable, but this is still an enjoyable action-filled disaster flick packed heavily with visual spectacle.

Did we go to Jurassic Park to hear witty banter? Hell no.

At least four things redeem this movie:

1) The villain, Senator Corvus. He is an absolutely vile, intractable enemy. He's on a par with The Joker against Batman, Lex Luthor against Superman.

2) While I usually don't care about special effects, they were pretty awesome in this movie, though if I see another scene where people try to outrun a tidal wave (which travels at least 100 mph), I will probably throw popcorn at the screen.

3) The acting is really quite good. Few people have even touched upon this. It's not easy acting in these spectacle movies. The dialogue is often on the nose, and there's not a lot of room for artistic interpretation, but the actors were very good in their roles, especially Kit Harington (the Celtic slave), and Kiefer Sutherland, playing Senator Corvus.

4) Originality and historical events: there were some good moments of originality in this story. I enjoyed how Rome was portrayed, not just as a military powerhouse, but also as a den of snakes politically. Along with historical inaccuracy were bits of historical fact, and the mix was quite satisfying.

So if you read that this movie was lame, cheesy, and a waste of time, consider that they missed the virtues of this movie. This is one of the rare movies where the villain really is wholly despicable. The trend nowadays is to show his complex nature, so that the character doesn't come off as cartoonish. But Senator Corvus is played so well by Kiefer Sutherland, and his role so well written, that he comes off splendidly as someone who really is just a despicable human being. I applaud the writers resisting the temptation to show redeeming characteristics as they do in (really lame) movies like The Expendables. If I see thugs writing poetry one more time I'm going to barf.

But nothing in this movie will provoke such a reaction. It's really a good effort. Not perfect, but well worth your time.

Moon 44 (1990)

Embarrassingly bad movie, on almost all levels

[1/10 · 27 June 2013]

Most of the reviews of this movie came around the time it made its debut. Now it's a dozen years later... and this piece of trash sure hasn't aged well.

But even if this were opening day, this absolutely abysmal movie would still rank as one of the worst in history.

It starts out with some of the worst acting I've ever seen, people sitting around a conference table at a major corporation. I swear it looks like the director or producer just decided to cut costs and have his friends and family fill in for real actors. One can really appreciate good acting when one sees the complete opposite.

The worst, most ill-conceived character is the Sergeant aboard the space ship. His dialogue is contradictory nonsense. I couldn't believe my ears. It was stupefying. Maybe standards for movie making were more lax back then, but his was incomprehensible.

All the characters are cartoonish, the acting is horrendous, and the amateurish "plot" is just an embarrassment to anyone who loves good movies. This one insults our intelligence at every turn.

As you probably know, this movie is about the (grim) future when we need to exploit space for raw materials. One massive company is losing all their moon mining operations to pirates. Their cargo shuttles, full of raw materials, go missing. Therefore, they need to find out what's going on, or the company will lose everything.

That could be an interesting premise for a movie, but not the way it was done here. Every lame cliché was put to dutiful use, every cookie cutter character was used. Nothing worthy of our time or attention. This was paint by numbers, and sloppily done.

This is by no means some elitist review. I love movies of all sort. I wasn't looking for some intellectual "art house" film. This review is negative because the entire film, from start to finish, is just a horrid waste of our time.

Case 39 (2009)

Scary, not predictable

[9/10 · 2 June 2013]

Caution: my review also refers to another movie, "Sinister", so there might be spoilers for both movies.

Do not read any farther if you don't want to know anything about "Sinister".

I am often amused at how many people proudly boast that a movie was "predictable". I want to pat them on their smug little heads and say, "You're such a clever little thing, aren't you?" :-) If anyone wants to claim this movie was predictable, they must be psychic... or psychotic.

Unlike Sinister, which in my mind "cheats" the audience with a completely implausible set of circumstances, and the final explanation, Case 39 leads you down a path then suddenly takes a left turn. Wham! You thought you were seeing a movie like Halle Berry's "The Call", and then you realize you're in something far more.... sinister.

The basic plot of the movie is this: Renée Zellweger (who is absolutely fantastic in this role) plays a social worker, burdened down with 38 cases.... until her boss further burdens her with (you guessed it!).... Case 39, which is about a little girl whose parents seem to be (at least psychologically) abusing her.

There's not reason to give away too much of the surprise. We assume her parents are true monsters who literally try to bake her in the oven. Later we find out they are not crazy.

Why do I mention a similar movie, "Sinister"? Because these are two takes on essentially the same basic story. Sinister was a remarkably WELL MADE movie. Technically it gets high marks in many areas. But the basic premise and many plot points are just absurd, and defy logic. But Case 39 is plausible throughout. We don't have to make any effort to suspend our disbelief.

Case 39 is scary, and keeps the tension high. We truly feel that Renée Zellweger is in danger, even though she is being tormented by (what looks like) a harmless little girl.

This is the type of movie you could see in the theatre and come out feeling great you didn't wait for it to come out on video, which regrettably was my case. I was in Europe when this movie premiered and never saw it in the theatres. So if the movie made a great impact on the small screen, it must be amazing in the theatres.

Really regret not having seen it there.

Identity Thief (2013)

A witty, charming comedy that isn't a tired re-tread

[9/10 · 7 May 2013]

First of all, I'm SHOCKED at the negative reviews from some people. I'm tough on comedies because I hate forced humour. I despise movies that practically beg us to laugh along with them, or have to resort to disgusting, juvenile stunts to elicit even a snicker.

In myt mind, this movie is similar in tone to The Hangover, which most people loved. Therefore, I can't imagine why so many people gave this movie a bad review, especially since Melissa McCarthy's performance is one of the most remarkably hilarious in film history. She could be another Lucille Ball.

Identity Thief isn't a desperate comedy. It doesn't need the actors to "yuck it up" for us. The plot is funny enough to carry the movie, and Melissa McCarthy is absolutely stellar in her role. When Academy Award time comes, I would hope there's enough sense to nominate her for Best Actress.

Identify Thief is about a man whose identity is stolen and the myriad problems it causes him. What makes this movie so engaging is that his nemesis, although seemingly without a conscience at first, does indeed have a heart.

The movie never lags. It never resorted to any lame subplot to make up for lack of material. The story was rock solid, and so were the performances. I can honestly say I enjoyed this movie more than the mega-budget, blockbuster Iron Man III.

Mama (I) (2013)

Movies like this give Hollywood a bad name!

[2/10 · 4 April 2013]

If you see this movie you are either desperate to get out of the house, or you're a fool. (if I had known what I do now, I would never have gone)

Let me be frank: so many movies are just desperate attempts to catch the public's attention, and if they can accomplish that, actually having a decent movie is completely secondary. Independence Day suckered in tens of millions of people with a flashy trailer. Of course, the trailer was the best part of the movie.

What's wrong with "Mama"? It's such a tired re-tread of so many other movies, and one that just doesn't ring true as an "authentic" story, one you could actually believe. It's so much like "The Grudge" or "The Eye". The (over)-use of moths to represent evil was done just last year in the abominable movie, "The Possession" (to the disgrace of Sam Raime).

Another problem: we know very quickly what is happening so there is little real suspense, except for who will live and who will die. But since we can't buy into the story anyway, it doesn't matter very much.

Too many movies act like if they add enough feathers, they can turn a sickly duck into a swan. In "Mama" the only way to keep our interest is to use CGI... to death. Let's be honest: we know that CGI is CGI. It's not novel. It's not clever. It's desperation. It's fine when you want to show an army of 10,000. Then it can actually work well. But not in something like this where we know we are seeing lame computer animation. Enough already! Stop insulting the viewer's intelligence and sophistication. If this were 1960 you could get away with it. Not now.

The central problems are redundancy and imitation. We know "mama" is this bad, evil spirit. We know she will strike. But since "mama" is a ridiculous CGI projection, we yawn. Imitation is the biggest culprit here. How many movies have we seen where a wrong was committed in the past and now the only way for the spirit to rest is for that wrong to be righted?

This movie fails on so many levels. It's just so derivative or dozens of other movies that there is no point in watching.

I gave this 2 stars. Looking back, I gave "The Possession" 3. Probably should switch those ratings. Of the two, "The Possession" was even lamer.

The Possession (I) (2012)

Tired, unimaginative, and sometimes laughable

[3/10 · 19 October 2012]

Let me start with the laughable part: sorry if this sounds politically incorrect or religiously biased but... I couldn't take a hasidic Jew as an "exorcist" seriously at all. At least in movies where the exorcist was a Catholic priest, there seemed to be some semblance of strength behind the ceremony. But a man with curled locks who appears about as dangerous and forceful as a florist just is ridiculous. No offense to anyone of the Jewish faith.

The movie starts off slow. The entire plot revolves around the mysterious box, which somehow I found to be a total dud. The box.... seemed like a box. I never for one minute could imagine it as a repository for a demon soul, or anything else.

All the desperate attempts to create tension were so hackneyed. I found hardly anything original about the plot. Strangely enough, as I'm watching the movie, one thought kept racing through my mind: Ghost House Pictures probably had 1,000 screenplays they could have filmed. THIS was what they considered to be a "winner"?

You probably already know the plot: a girl buys a box that has an evil force inside it. Great... now what? That is the question they should have asked before filming. There simply was nothing compelling about the plot. It certainly didn't provide many scares. It didn't create a realistic place we could believe in. It was very one dimensional.

Exiting the theater I couldn't help but wonder: why film this junk? Did they think it was safe? Did they think it was close enough to "Paranormal Activity" that they'd cash in?

P.S. If you read this review, please let me know with a thumbs up or down. I'm just curious how many people read these.

Blast from the Past (1999)

The epitome of what Hollywood does better than anyone

[10/10 · 30 March 2012]

Five and a half years ago I moved from Chicago to Europe. Europeans have a different taste in movies. To be blunt, they have a BS Meter that reads off the chart. When something doesn't ring true, when it's contrived and phony, they react harshly.

Europeans also despise American "heart warming" anything... They simply aren't as optimistic as we are, and hence don't believe in so many happy endings.

Now, despite all this, Blast From The Past, a movie that is immersed in charm, style and wit, without ever resorting to bathroom humor, passed with flying colors. This is a movie whose charm cannot be overstated. It is a triumph of film making.

You probably know the general story: Brendan Fraser's parents hid in their backyard fallout shelter when they feared the Cuban missile crisis was about to explode (bad pun). Thirty five years later, Brendan is sent out in the world to bring back supplies. He is told the world will be full of death, decay, misery, and probably mutants.

Whoops. Guess not.

Brendan starts out like a lost puppy dog, but thanks to a skillful screenplay, great acting and directing, he never becomes an object of ridicule. He is simply inexperienced and pure of heart. After all, he's been living apart from society his whole life. We have to give him a break.

What sets this movie apart is how it doesn't run scared from "what if" scenarios. For example, in lesser hands this might have degenerated into some sappy, forgettable comedy. But everyone involved seems to have been on the top of their game. It's like a jigsaw puzzle and all the pieces fit together flawlessly. This movie doesn't coldly and calculatingly create warmth and charm; it simply possesses it...in abundance, like a priceless work of art that seems more discovered than created.

I have never met anyone who didn't like this movie. I am really surprised the overall rating isn't higher. Under no circumstances could I imagine giving this movie less than an 8.

My rating is a 10, because 11 is off the scale.

I wish more Hollywood movies were like this.

P.S. If you read this review, let me know with Helpful or Not Helpful vote. Thanks. I am interested in how many people really read these reviews.

Melancholia (2011)

Boring and irritating beyond belief

[2/10 · 1 July 2011]

*** I'm always interested in how many people read these reviews. If you read this, please leave your rating. Thanks.

*** Addendum: there is something very SUSPICIOUS with the reviews of this movie. Every person who writes a negative review gets overwhelming disapproval, but from everyone I've spoken to about this movie, it should be the opposite. This movie is a snooze fest. It's one of the worst things I've ever seen. Only film snobs and people associated with this movie would claim they like it. Hmmm.... **************************

How this movie ever got made I'll never understand.

If the whole point of going to the movies is entertainment, then this movie fails dismally. It starts off at a wedding, and it takes agonizingly long to get us there, similar to the ridiculously long carriage ride in Charles Dickens' novel, "Bleak House". Well, at least Dickens had an interesting story! The Kate Hudson character suffers from... you guessed it, Melancholy. Wow, talk about subtlety. Her melancholy makes her so irritating and slows down the plot to such an extent that at times I wondered when this train wreck of a movie would ever (mercifully) end.

So here's the summary, folks: the lead actress' character is irritating, boring, and dismal. The people around her can only react to this lethargic lump of a plot... that plods along endlessly at the wedding. Finally the tragic wedding ends, and the movie continues to plod along like a plow horse that hasn't been fed in a week.

I kept expecting a "big bang" of a finish. Nope. While the end was at least the best part (because it was just a minute or so), it certainly wasn't worth the other two hours of torture it took to get there.

To show how bad this movie was, how completely disassociated I was from what was going on, I initially wrote this: "How could they rope a great actress like Kate Hudson into a movie like this?", not realizing that the actress is Kirsten Dunst!

This is very telling.

ADDENDUM: It took me over a year to test a theory of mine. My goal was to speak with twenty people who saw this movie, a surprisingly hard task, but I finally completed my un-scientific (but accurate) survey: 19 of 20 people told me this was one of the worst movies they had ever seen.

19 of 20

Some raved on and on about how they despised every bit of the movie. Eight people said it was so boring they wanted to leave the theatre. If I included myself in the survey, that would have been 10 (both my friend and I both wanted to leave; ironically, neither one of us realized how bored the other was, so each of us remained silent instead of suggesting we cut our losses).

What's very suspicious about the reviews of this movie is that they are completely out of synch with popular opinion. I've proved that, at least to myself, with this (long time coming) survey. It's apparent that most viewers hated this movie, and yet you can read about how some people supposedly liked it. Who are these people? Friends of the director? Isn't it odd so many of these positive reviews come from that part of Europe???

One last thing, it's also highly suspicious that 84 people would have read my review and a full half of them would bother to give a thumbs up or down. In all the reviews I've ever done, never more than 10 people have ever bothered to say if the review was helpful or not. But in this case, this highly suspicious case, forty some people took the time to say the review was not helpful.

Odd? I'd say statistically impossible.

Gran Torino (2008)

Intelligent writing, great acting, interesting story

[9/10 · 11 April 2009]

From the Summary above you can already see this movie packs a 1-2-3 punch.

I have a new perspective on movies ever since I moved to Europe (Czech Republic) two years ago. You would think that foreigners would mainly like action movies such as The Fast And The Furious, but the truth is, they are quite a bit more sophisticated.

The American movies shown here in Prague are usually subtitled, not dubbed. As I'm listening to the dialogue, I'm also reading the Czech subtitles, and in this case, they were done quite well, which is surprising considering that there is A LOT of very hard-core slang used in the movie. None of it was lost on the audience. They were laughing unselfconsciously. They enjoyed the movie every bit as much as I did.

The premise of the movie is very promising, and it certainly delivers on those promises: Clint Eastwood portrays a retired auto worker, a hard-talking, hard drinking guy who has just lost his wife. His new neighbors are Asian, and as an old-school man from the Midwest, he is not at all happy at the prospect of the neighborhood changing ethnically. But circumstances beyond his control induce him to change his perspective somewhat and his relationship with the new neighbors.

You can guess a little what happens with the clash of cultures, but the more details I give you the less surprising the movie will be, so let's just leave the plot line with the simple sketch I've outlined above. What's important is that the movie is a combination of humor, drama, pathos, and a bit of tension thrown into the mix.

No one lasts forever, and when Clint Eastwood someday passes away (we hope that occurs at some distant time in the future), this film will take its place as one of the big highlights of his career. I just came back from seeing the movie, and if someone asked me to see it again tomorrow, I'd accept the invitation immediately. Gran Torino is one of those rare films that is completely satisfying and makes you feel like the $10 you spent for a ticket was really a bargain.

Changeling (2008)

The "Good Old Days" of movie making are right now!

[10/10 · 10 January 2009]

There is a hauntingly beautiful song called "Dark Side Of Your Soul", sung by the under-rated singer, Kiki Dee. Part of the lyrics say, "If you never know the darker side, you'll never see the light --- of your soul." This past week I have seen the dark and the light. The movie "Australia" was a clunker. It reminded me of the cloyingly morose songs sung by Celine Dion, who suffocates every line with sobbing, carefully-crafted sincerity. "Australia" should have been a magnificent movie, but it lacks any warmth; instead it relies on the kind of plastic, manufactured sincerity that we saw in other clunkers like "Pearl Harbor".

"Changeling" is the complete opposite. I was transfixed. What was happening on the screen commanded my total attention. Mrs. Collins' anguish became my own. I wanted her to find her son every bit as much as she did.

"Changeling" is based on a true story about Christine Collins, a California woman whose son was abducted in 1928. Right from the start, you feel her anguish, and the frustration of not knowing where her son is, nor whether he is alive or dead.

One of the elements of brilliance in this movie is how plausible everything is. Mrs. Collins is not just fighting the agony of losing her son, but also battling against the incredibly corrupt L.A.P.D. who see her as an embarrassment to the police force. When the public attention becomes too great a liability for the L.A.P.D. they have her sent to a psychiatric ward. This part was absolutely chilling, because it showed how completely helpless she was when everyone is part of the conspiracy of silence. No matter what she does, she cannot prevail.

Angelina Jolie has to walk a tightrope of sorts in this movie. She is strong-willed, but she is not some ultimately invincible, puffed up superwoman that can single-handedly take on the whole world, and especially not this world, which is rife with corruption.

At the end of "Changeling" you learn if there was a happy reuniting of mother and son. Since I have chosen not to write any "spoilers", you'll have to see the movie for yourself to know the answer. And that will be time very well spent because this movie truly is like the golden age of film making.

**Addition added January 16, 2009** I first started writing these reviews in 2005. Sometimes three years went by without even one thumbs up or down on a review. So now I just regularly ask people to rate it. I'm just curious how many people read these reviews.

Kate & Leopold (2001)

Interesting concept, bad movie

[4/10 · 6 December 2008]

If you read any of my other reviews, you will see I've chosen only to comment on movies I loved.

Here's my first exception in the four years I've begun writing movie reviews here.

This is one of those movies women think will be so charming and romantic. If they are not very sophisticated, this clunker of a movie may actually meet their expectations. For the rest of us, disappointment is what awaits us.

What ruins a movie like this for me is the implausibility of the lead male actor falling in love with the female lead actor. The attraction is cloyingly forced. It's not believable, and that is just the kiss of death for the viewer who is too many times asked to suspend disbelief. If we don't believe in the attraction between the co-stars, the movie fails.

This plot failure is what ruined the Freddie Prinz movie, "She All That". Just as Meg Ryan's character couldn't possibly attract Leopold, Rachel Leigh Cook was so bristlingly unpleasant that Freddie Prinze's love interest in her is absurd. You can practically see the script being read out loud.

Leopold (Hugh Jackman) plays a nineteenth century nobleman and inventor who gets transported to the 21st century. For some inexplicable reason, he takes a romantic interest in the very modernized, workaholic, stressed-out Kate (Meg Ryan). Perhaps Kate's modernity and sassy ways could initially be of some transitory curiosity to the refined Leopold, but a romantic attraction is more than I could force myself to believe.

To be blunt, Kate is not exactly a prize. To be even more frank, Meg Ryan does not look very good in this movie. Add to this the fact that her character doesn't have that many good personal qualities (etiquette, grooming, taste, style, manners, etc.), and our ability to accept the implausible is stretched too thin.

It's not until you've seen a movie like this that you appreciate how good other "concept" movies are. "The Butterfly Effect" with Ashton Kutcher is an outstanding movie that has to do with traveling through time.

Travelling through time? Kate & Leopold just plods along, and wastes our time. . . . **Addition added January 16, 2009** I first started writing these reviews in 2005. Sometimes three years went by without even one thumbs up or down on a review. So now I just regularly ask people to rate it. I'm just curious how many people read these reviews.

The Strangers (2008)

As scary as "Jaws" on land !

[9/10 · 6 December 2008]

First of all, I wouldn't know how to comment on this movie without saying something that might be considered a spoiler, so here's one of the few times I going to reveal a little... but just a little.

As you may know, the plot revolves around a man and woman who are spending the night at his summer/weekend cottage. At 4am, there's a knock on the door. Well, it's not just a knock; it sounds more like a battering ram. Just hearing that sound made my heart jump, and I'm kind of a jaded movie-goer. I now live in Prague (Czech Republic), and there is an art movie theater right on the first floor of my building.

What's creepy about this film is you don't really know the level of menace the couple will encounter. It seems like the tormentors have plenty of opportunities to kill them, but it's almost like a cat playing with a worn out mouse.

I can easily imagine this movie having been made in another country. The budget must have been minuscule, but it's infinitely more scary and tension filled than a movie that goes for cheap shock value. This is the real deal. The tension is isn't just palpable; sometimes it's almost suffocating. I was really tense watching this, and nowadays when we've seen it all before, that is quite a feat.

I don't know if the brunt of the credit should go to the writers, or to the director. In different hands, this movie would have been a complete bore-fest, but the director works magic with the material he's given.

This night only lasts a few hours; remember, most of the action starts at 4am, but the tension is so high you'd swear the night lasted for twelve hours.

I would strongly recommend this movie for someone who enjoys scary, tension-filled movies, but is turned off by stupid special effects and connect-the-dots story lines. This movie is special. Don't miss it.

Mean Creek (2004)

Amazingly accurate depiction of American adolescence

[10/10 · 9 February 2008]

I had one of the biggest shocks of my life recently. I proudly showed this film to my best friend from Europe. We normally have very similar tastes in movies.

I have to admit, I almost teared up a little around the end of the movie, but managed to keep my composure. Then the movie ended... to dead silence! I was waiting for my friend to say something, and what he said shocked me: "What the hell was THAT?" After discussing the movie a bit, I came to the conclusion that his experiences growing up were so different than this that it was like showing a futuristic Sci Fi movie to a person living in rural Zimbabwe. In the Czech Republic, where he is from, you don't commonly have these kinds of problems. Kids get along amazingly well. You may find this hard to believe, but in the Czech Republic, grade school and high school teachers routinely take their classes to places all around Europe. They have no trouble with kids not getting along. No one has any whiny special requests, and no one refuses to share a room with someone.

Guess that explains why this movie made no sense to my friend.

However, if you are an American, as I am, this movie is deeply touching, and may even bring back unsettling childhood memories of bullies.

Scott Mechlowicz is certifiably great in this movie, as is Josh Peck, who plays George, the bully. I look back at movies from the 1970's. Child actors back then were hilariously amateurish compared to these people. In fact, movies increasingly are showcasing young actors whose talents are absolutely astounding. (unlike the kid who played opposite Lucille Ball as "Auntie Mame's grandson).

What makes this movie so compelling and memorable is that it is tragedy in the old Greek sense of the word: people bring about their own downfall. The bully George, as it turns out, has a good side, but he is socially inept, and so he lashes out in terrible ways. The kids are ready to like him and forgive him. Instead, George can't control his anger, and he verbally lashes out at everyone, until their newfound compassion (or at least pity) for him starts to evaporate.

The tragedy in this movie is that everything comes so close to working out fine for everyone.

I hope that will peak your interest. And speaking of interest, I have none in writing a "spoiler" review. This movie is best seen knowing as little as possible about the plot.

I think if I had to defend American movie making against all the criticism of how Hollywood depends on special effects, big name actors, and lurid story lines, I would choose this movie as proof that American movies are still the best in the world.

Addition added January 16, 2009: I have been writing reviews here for over three years. Sometimes years will go by without any indication someone read my review. So, please let me know if you read it. The thumbs up or thumbs down is entirely your choice. I'm just curious.

Dawn of the Dead (2004)

This movie proves the cinema experience dwarfs that of TV!

[10/10 · 4 October 2007]

If you're reading this review, you probably already know the general plot: an unexplained plague has created incredibly fast, strong, rabidly hungry flesh-eating zombies. The few human survivors take refuge in a shopping mall.

Rather that describe the movie, let me tell you how it affected me, because the true test of cinema is if it made an emotional impact on you. Keep in mind that movie makers have an almost impossible task. Nowadays, we're all jaded movie goers. Seeing realistic dinosaurs, or spaceships hurtling through space often elicit yawns, not wide-eyed amazement.

I saw Dawn of the Dead at a 10:30pm show on a Sunday night. When I left the theatre, it was pitch black, and my heart was pounding in my chest. Even though I am a very rational person, I couldn't overcome an overwhelming sense of fear. Just like a little kid who sees his first monster movie, I was scared and deeply affected.

When I opened my car, I made sure that no one was hiding in the back seat (yes, that is ridiculous, but is shows what an astoundingly strong impression the movie had on me). I drove home in complete silence. I kept the radio off, and I drove through the blackness and the empty streets common after midnight on a Sunday in suburbia.

I drove quietly down the same street I had been 10,000 times before, but very oddly, there was a police car sitting next to a cul-de-sac. In 30 years of driving, I had never seen a police car there. The lights were off, so I couldn't discern anything in the blackness. The first thought that went through my head was whether the policman inside was still alive, or already a zombie. Perhaps his partner was already feasting on his corpse. (What am I thinking??!! This is ridiculous. Get that movie out of your head. Pay attention to the road and just get home.)

When I arrived home, it actually occurred to me that if I used the garage door opener, I would alert any zombies in the area that living people are in the house (mental note to self: stop! This is ridiculous. It's just a movie. It's just a movie. It's just a movie.) When I closed the door behind me, I made sure no one slipped in at the last moment. I walked carefully to the dark, unlit landing and........ pow!!!! A light bulb met a noisy, flashbulb type death as it burnt out. That scared the hell out of me, as if my heart weren't racing enough.

As I walked through the kitchen, it occurred to me how vulnerable the house would be to a zombie attack. Too many windows. (another mental note: stop! Pull yourself together. It's just a movie) I closed my bedroom door, and did something I had never done in all the years I lived there: I locked it.

If a movie can have this kind of effect on a normally unflappable adult, there is no question the movie accomplished what it set out to do: it scared the hell out of the audience.

Note: Dawn of the Dead must be seen in a theatre to get the full experience. On TV, it's like watering down a beer. On TV, (even a nice big 50" plasma, all the doomsday visuals that previously astounded me seemed not only less impressive just whizzed right past me. In particular, the scene where they have retro-fitted a bus to make an escape. In the theatre, that scene looked like something out of Armageddon. It was awe-inspiring and awesome, rolled into one. On TV, the scene appeared to just race by me.

Music and Lyrics (2007)

Charming, witty, and lighthearted comedy

[10/10 · 3 September 2007]

There are already 222 reviews of this movie, so the chances of anyone ever reading this are slim. However, I'm a sucker for a longshot. (so if you read this review, please give it a thumbs up or a thumbs down...I'm curious to know if anyone will ever read this, buried under more than 200 other reviews)

When a friend suggested we rent this movie, my initial reaction was, "NO!! It's a chick flick. And besides, it's got Hugh Grant in it. Those are two really big strikes against it." However, and remember my fondness for longshots, the movie also casts Drew Barrymore in the other lead role. I couldn't resist.

To my complete surprise, both actors were excellent, and Hugh Grant doesn't have a bad singing voice. To be honest, if he and Drew Barrymore wanted to record an album of pop songs, I think it could do quite well. Her strength is that she is perky and funny, and that compensates for lack of trained vocal talent. Sometimes you DON'T want to hear Barbra Streisand.

Here's the quickie plot summary: Hugh Grant was in a popular band of the 1980s, and now he's reduced to playing for embarrassing venues like shopping malls, amusement parks, and High School reunions. When a Britney Spears-type singer wants him to write her new single, his life changes completely, but only due to Drew Barrymore's help.

I now judge movies in part by how my European friends would react to them. I have to admit that some American movies are a little corny, but this movie passed the test with flying colors. A friend from Slovakia not only loved the movie, he insisted on watching the trailers and special scenes.... twice! It was a welcome relief to actually be proud of a Hollywood movie.

I now have new-found respect for Hugh Grant, and my admiration for Drew Barrymore is higher than ever. She sure has a lot of talent for playing someone with pluck and a little bit of endearing wackiness.

Dark Blue World (2001)

Beware, this movie will make you cry your eyes out!

[10/10 · 12 March 2007]

If you want to see the true, vile nature of Communism, watch the movie DARK BLUE WORLD. (Tvamomodrý Svet) It recounts how the brave Czech pilots who refused to surrender fled to England to join the fight against the Nazis. After the war, the Communists feared they had picked up dangerous Western ideas about freedom. So, they had these heroic Czech pilots thrown into a nightmarish prison, where some of the guards were the same Nazis they risked their lives to defeat.

If Hollywood wants to understand why so many of their movies fall flat, they should compare the character drama portions of "Pearl Harbor" with this movie. In Dark Blue World, you really make a connection to all the characters. In Pearl Harbor, everyone is like some slick cartoon version of a real person.

There are innumerable instances of brilliant writing in this movie. One funny scene that sticks in my mind is when the character Karel is being taught English by a rather formal Englishwoman. When he can't pronounce a word, he ridicules the lesson. In typical stoic English fashion, the teacher calmly but forcefully confronts Karel, and shames him into behaving.

The aerial battle sequences in this movie are amazing, and they help to keep the movie lively. I read that it cost $11,000 an hour to rent the planes, but it was worth every penny.

Ladies, you are expected to cry at sad movies, but guys.... beware! This movie would make General Patton weep. And if you are a dog lover, you'll use up half a box of Kleenex. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Jedna ruka netleská (2003)

What do you prefer? Sane and stupid, or insane and intelligent?

[7/10 · 10 January 2007]

The lead characters in this movie fall into two categories: smart and stupid. Simple enough.

Jiri Machacek (Standa) plays a hapless, dopey guy who gets arrested for a crime he did not commit. When he tries to get financially reimbursed by his evil, former boss, the situation gets out of control.

While Standa is genuinely (but endearingly) stupid, his buddy Ondrej is an absolute blithering idiot who bungles everything and manages to say and do the wrong thing every time. Without Ondrej, Standa might stand a chance of going through life with some modest degree of success. With Ondrej, life will never be boring, but it sure won't be without a lot of headaches!

Ivan Trojan plays Zdenek, an evil genius type who degenerates into some Hitler-esquire delusional tyrant. Zdenek and his henchmen try to kill Standa to keep Zdenek's secrets safe.

I am very impressed with the high quality and imagination of Czech films. For a relatively small country, the Czech Republic certainly has produced more than its share of superb entertainment. The best Czech movies I have seen are: 1) Pelišky and 2) Tmavomodrý Svet (Dark Blue World). If you see these two movies, you have seen the absolute best of Czech cinema.

The Rose (1979)

Bette's masterpiece

[10/10 · 20 August 2006]

In THE ROSE, Bette Midler plays a character based on the life of Janis Joplin. This one of those rare movies where everything works perfectly. Although she is amazingly talented, I sometimes wonder if Bette herself ever looks back on this movie and wonders how she managed such an amazing portrayal, in the same way that an Olympic skater reviews the footage of a 10.0 performance and is stunned that every blade stroke really is picture perfect.

While the storyline is memorable, and the acting superb, music outshines everything else. This is a movie from 1979, a time when rock and roll was still considered a lifestyle, and big rock bands were treated with absolute god-like adoration. Music mattered. It was a vital part of peoples' lives, and in THE ROSE it reaches the heights of excellence that normally exist only in memories that have improved with age. In this case, the music sounds as vibrant, exciting, and fresh today as when the movie debuted.

Bette belts out these songs with soul and fiery passion. The only other contemporary singer I can imagine doing a similarly credible job is Melissa Etheridge.

Sissy Spacek won the Best Actress Oscar for Coal Miner's Daughter (1980), but in retrospect I'm sure a lot of people regret not having awarded it to Bette Midler. This was not only an amazing, high caliber performance, but one that the passage of time has not diminished. This is a stunning movie. My dream is to rent a movie theatre for an evening, invite 30 friends, and relive this great experience.

Movie theatres used to be bigger, and were aptly called "movie palaces". THE ROSE deserves to be seen in such a grand venue. In the rich pantheon of movie history, THE ROSE is true royalty.

Note added October 9, 2007: It has been over a year, and I have no indication if anyone has ever read this review. If you read it, even if you give it a thumbs down, please answer whether the review was useful to you or not. I just am so curious if anyone will EVER read it. Right now, I'm listening to the soundtrack. This movie is timeless.

The King (2005)

A dark portrayal though a shining angelic face

[8/10 · 27 June 2006]

The reviews I read prior to seeing "The King" seemed to fault Gael Garcia Bernal's performance for not being "dark" enough. In most portrayals of this sort, the main character is supposed to chill the viewer to the bone by abruptly revealing his true evil self.

That's not how Gael Garcia Bernal plays the protagonist, Elvis Valderez, a young man with an angelic face who has just finished his duty in the Navy. Elvis never reveals any hidden monster. There's no traumatic moment that takes a good man and pushes him over the abyss into madness. The truth is we've been seeing his true nature throughout the movie but were too mesmerized by his handsome features to believe he could be anything but a sweet, lovable guy.

This movie doesn't offer us expansive scenic vistas like "The Motorcycle Diaries", nor Quentin Tarantino-type hyper violence like "Amores Perros". What it does offer is another great movie performance, a unique character that will stay in our memories.

Gael Garcia Bernal is currently my favorite actor, a fact that works against him every time I see one of his movies, because no one should be able to live up to my inflated expectations. I think Johnny Depp and Brendan Frasier are two of the best actors in movies today, but both of them have appeared in at least one movie I didn't care for. So far, Gael Garcia Bernal has surpassed all my expectations.

Final Destination (2000)

This movie exemplifies WHY we go to the movies

[10/10 · 22 February 2006]

Plot in a nutshell: High School student Alex Browning (Devon Sawa) has a vision that the plane he is about to take to France will explode. He and some other students get kicked off the plane for causing a huge disturbance.

It seems they have cheated death, but that is only a quickly evaporating illusion. Everyone who survived is about to pay the price because the grim reaper is an intractable enemy. Think of death here like The Terminator, or the unstoppable Borg from Star Trek, but with a malicious sense of humor.

Seeing Final Destination was one of the greatest movie-going experiences of my life. If they had been charging $100 a ticket, the price of admission would have been worth it. Movies like this should remind us all that waiting until a movie comes out on video is a poor decision. Almost invariably, the impact of seeing a movie is severely diminished on the TV screen (I don't care if you have a 70-inch plasma; nothing substitutes for seeing a movie in the theatre. When I saw Dawn of the Dead in the theatre, my heart was racing all night, and for the first time ever, I locked my bedroom door. When I watched it again on video.....zilch, nada.)

The script has plenty of clever twists and turns. The writing, editing, and cinematography are absolutely brilliant. Imagine taking a John Denver song, and making it a spooky harbinger of impending doom.

If I ever had to pick my top ten favorite movies of all time, Final Destination would definitely qualify.

CrissCross (1992)

Movie creates a great sense of time and place

[7/10 · 21 February 2006]

Criss Cross takes place in Key West, 1969. The biggest success of this movie is creating a realistic sense of time and place. You can practically feel the humidity and smell the ocean in this movie.

Goldie Hawn plays a divorced mother raising her 12 year old son, played by David Arnott. I don't know the full story, but I have read that quite a few critics made rather vicious comments about David's performance. Without even taking into consideration that this was his acting debut, I thought his acting was quite good. He was likable and charming. For once, we see a kid who actually acts and talks like a kid. When you see him working (three jobs, no less), it really looks like he is working, not just going through the motions.

It might have taken some work by the acting coaches to produce the performance we see on screen, but the end result is excellent.

David also narrates the movie. I liked his relaxed, laconic speaking style. It really set the tone for the movie.

Criss Cross is a movie that stays with me because it shows a vanished world, a place and time that can't be reproduced. It is a world of living simply. Life is hard, but there is a pervasive sense of hope. It reminded me of the first time I visited Spain's Costa del Sol in 1983. The "outside world" hadn't made a dent in many of the smaller towns. You could walk into a small, family run store and see merchandise that must have been on the shelves for many years. The pace was slow, and in retrospect the days all seemed sunny and warm.

That is how this movie will make you feel.

All About Eve (1950)

Very sophisticated movie, ahead of its time

[10/10 · 9 February 2006]

When I saw "All About Eve", I was pleasantly surprised (practically shocked, too) at how audacious some of the dialogue is. Considering how strict censors were back then, you would expect they would not allow some of the more risqué double entendre.

Besides very sophisticated dialogue, the characters are amazingly complex. They may simultaneously love and hate someone, and feel various shades of emotion between the two. Modern movies rarely show such complicated characters who can't be neatly pigeonholed as good or bad.

"All About Eve" was doubtlessly thrilling to see at its debut, and is equally entrancing now. If this movie has aged, it has aged very well.