jjunkie2 Reviews

Moulin Rouge! (2001)

few compete

[2 July 2001]

there is something that a lot of people are missing about this movie... it IS every romantic, tawdry, over-the-top love story ever told... thats the whole point...

romeo and juliet didn't die because of their parents' feud or of star-crossed love... no, they died of romanticism... that's what baz luhrmann is saying with this masterpiece... could have been trimmed in places, could have been more objective at the end to hammer home his point, but... otherwise a film masterpiece that is not only magical, but literary as well...

if you take your brain to this film, you will miss out...

if you take your heart to this film, you will miss out...

if you make sure you have both your brain and your heart in place for this one, you will not be disappointed

Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead (1990)

Maybe the play is different...

[17 June 2001]

Seems to me that fans of the play are griping about the lack of something-or-other in the film. Fine.

It is safe to assume that Tom Stoppard is a reasonably intelligent artist. A reasonably intelligent artist realizes that different mediums create different possibilities for the same work. I am positive that Tom Stoppard considered that before he started working on the screenplay for R&GAD.

As sensible and intelligent viewers, we must search for the questions posed in Stoppard's film; questions that are possibly different from those in Stoppard's play.

In addition to the immaculate visual stunts and verbal sorcery, Tom Stoppard has given us a few of those questions to ponder. The questions deal with fate, time, identity, knowledge, justice, and most importantly: death. Consider these questions in the terms of Tom Stoppard's theatrical conceit of choice and you consider his greater questions: What are fate, time, identity, knowledge, justice and mortality to characters in a play?

After all, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are no more than characters in a play that has been thrust upon them. Are they destined to a certain end, or can they alter their fates? What is time to them as characters, and on whom does time hinge? Who are they, and how human are they allowed to be within their distinct characterizations? What do they know, and how and why do they know it? What happens when they die? And most importantly, are they served justly? What kind of justice can be done a fictional character?

Tom Stoppard does a masterful job of posing these questions and leaning the viewer toward the answers. No film in recent memory has asked such interesting and important (?) questions, nor answered them so deftly and wittily. Watch "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" even if you haven't seen or read Hamlet. If you have a sharp ear and a quick eye, you may just catch it all anyway. This film will not be remembered as a movie of a play on a play, but as a work of art in its own right and a beautifully wrought comic delight.

Mad City (1997)

trite

[9 May 2001]

what a bunch of garbage... it's too bad that these days, people rely on movies to make them think... this should be left in the same pile as 'patch adams' and 'finding forrester'... its a great irony, however, that people are led to consideration of media ethics by the media... "here, let me lead you to think about a movie in which people are led to think what we want them to"... the stakes in this movie are so astounding that people are unwittingly led to ignore everyday abuses of media ethics... im sure this is what the studios were planning on... its fortunate for us, however, that they realized what an awful waste of time and talent (especially dustin hoffman's) this was and hid it away as best they could... if you have any reasonably functioning mental faculties, steer clear... an insult to intelligent audiences everywhere

Enemy at the Gates (2001)

lowest common denominator

[3 April 2001]

good cast... good story... so much potential here... nice, but disappointing...

the story of vassily the man could have been squeezed into two hours... the story of vassily the man and the woman he loves and the friend who loves her and the socialist epic battle against the evil nazi forces could easily have been a great miniseries... i would have loved to make it...

plus, the acting lacked so much context... everyone had all of these motivations and endpoints and great energy, but almost all of them forgot to be scared of being shot... if i were there, i would have been pi***ing my pants in seconds... i didnt like much of saving private ryan, but *that* they did right... people dont walk through war zones with goals and intents and hopes and dreams... war boils you down and deadens your senses... that would have made falling in love something spectacular and not hum-drum "saw it coming"...

the real problem with this movie is that it was originally intended to be art-house... i mean, who in mainstream america wants to see nazis fighting good-guy commies? but instead of continuing with that in mind, the producers and directors and script-writers dumbed it down... how many times were we reminded of communist ideals? just how many?

it should have kept with the story and the theme that turned ed harris into a human and not just a nazi (which was good, kudos)... the story of vassily the man was good... keep that and youve got my interest... add the rest, and it becomes a muddled mash of commies and nazis, killers and lovers, spies and backstabbers... too much

Much Ado About Nothing (1993)

Surprisingly disappointing

[15 February 2001]

Shakespeare's genius was not limited to beautiful poetry and prose. He was the first (and almost the only) literary figure to portray real human beings in fiction. The problem with Branagh's production is that he loses almost every bit of the humanity in each of the characters.

In the *real* Much Ado About Nothing, Don Pedro and Claudio are unforgivably dense, obtuse, and chauvinist; in this version, they are unilaterally forgiven by cast and audience, due to Branagh's meddling. Leonato is a similarly pompous jerk, but is pared down to innocence and sweetness for no good reason. And Don John is *not* just a hollow villain; if Reeves knew how to speak, we could see that he has plenty of motivation to be so evil. It seems in this version that Branagh had no desire to allow the true characters to come through.

He shaved away lines like Leonato's "A victory is twice itself, Balthazar, when the acheiver brings home full numbers." This seems unimportant, but Leonato was just told that the people that *had* been killed in the war were "few of any sort, and none of name." The acheiver definitely did not bring home full numbers. Get my point? For the sake of posterity and sunniness, Branagh strips away much of what makes these characters real people and not stock characters.

Claudio, Hero, and Don Pedro (especially) are the major losers for Branagh's direction. The actors have had their parts shaven to the point where they have nothing to do but squirm and fidget in their non-roles. The only real people left in the cast are Benedick, Beatrice, and Borachio (of all people). This is because Branagh knows he would kill his own performance in doing this, and Emma Thompson and Borachio are experienced actors too smart to let Branagh chop their humanity away.

Unfortunately, by whittling down Shakespeare's masterpiece of comedy, Branagh has left us with a sunny, boisterous jaunt with a handful of real and interesting people and a whole crowd of talented actors forced to go through the motions with boring, stock characters. Shakespeare spent a lifetime creating fascinating people that actors can truly bring to life; it's unfortunate that Branagh didn't let his cast do that.

C.H.U.D. II: Bud the Chud (1989)

Huh?

[9 February 2001]

Is it my imagination, or are people decrying this abomination because it is a bad sequel to a *good* movie? Huh? True, there is no defense for this movie. Not even the appearance of some low-grade cult actor amidst the deluge of Bill and Ted wanna-bes (the worst kind of wanna-bes) can redeem this scripted pile of trash. It took a stupid theme and reduced it to mind-numbing Nickelodeon slush. I'm certain, however, that this was the makers' true intent - to turn viewers into gibbering zombies. The most apparent evidence in support of this hypothesis is the praise that has been lauded on the first C.H.U.D. movie in comparison with this one. Do people really miss the sight of Daniel Stern *that* much? Are his incomprehensible mutterings and stilted ravings ("Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers my @$$!") the only things this sequel is missing? Surprisingly, no. While C.H.U.D. II is an oyster, C.H.U.D. is no pearl. And unless you have a sure-fire defense against having *your* brain turned to mush, avoid *both*.

American Pie (1999)

What a load...

[31 July 1999]

...of CR*P! I can't believe that this movie was even picked up by the studios, much less that it's making so much money! The actors, with the sole exceptions of Finch and the curly-haired girl (there are reasons these people are no-names), are all horrible! Absolutely atrocious! If they have good delivery, then I should make another movie full of these nim-skulls and half-wits. I might make a good deal of money! This movie truly appeals to those who remember high school as a hormone imbalance ground-zero. I can't wait to see Eyes Wide Shut to purge myself of this inane garbage that people are calling sexual truth. Give me a break! And the writing! I've heard better on Marc Singer movies! The editing couldn't be choppier! I can't believe this film is so popular! People have no souls! Go watch Jason Lee in *any* of his movies - THAT is delivery! THAT is funny. I laughed twice because of the movie. I laughed twenty times with my friends at the writing and at the unbelievable quality of this movie! Save your money! I've heard Blair Witch is good. Go see it. Stay away from this gonzo piece of sh*t.

Night of the Living Dead (1968)

You have *got* to be kidding me!

[14 April 1999]

Wow. I just saw this movie yesterday for the first time. My friend Dan had rented it and wanted to watch it with me and my friends Rachel, Jim, and Kyle. We're B-movie enthusiasts and Dan said this one would be hilarious to rip apart. It was. People forgot their lines. One "expert" on the zombies actually says, "...take them outside and, and, and burn them." I love it! And how about the domestic violence! Ben is such a bad@$$, it's unbelievable! And why is the lady in the house dead? Does that actually have any significance or was it just in there for the sake of it? And why didn't she come back to life? She couldn't have been dead for very long. I don't see how this movie could be scary even watching it alone. I was more frightened by "The Evil Dead" than this schlock. Hehehe. What a great time, though. Rachel kept trying to find some coherence. She got very frustrated. Oh, and the people who made the movie even had a "Continuity" person. What a lousy job they did! This movie is a classic if only for its sheer inanity.

Pink Floyd: The Wall (1982)

It all depends on how you look at it

[21 February 1999]

A beautiful and haunting portrait of the isolation of the human psyche, 'Pink Floyd The Wall' should forever be recognized as not only a great film, but surely one of the greatest literary contributions of the 20th century. I have only seen this film once and still its impact lingers.

There are so many levels that this movie can be taken on. It can be taken simply as a biography of a disturbed rock star, but for many viewers, it holds much more than that. One thing that many viewers realize after watching and listening to the album intently is that we are all intended to relate to Pink. His is not a singular case of psychosis. Indeed, he represents all of humanity. We all have our walls, his was just larger. We are all afraid on some level of being exposed before our peers. His defense of being so exposed isolated him and drove him insane. The film is a lesson that we should be careful when building our walls that we do not cut ourselves off as Pink did.

Another way to take the movie is as a way of hypothesizing about the rationales in WWII. In the movie and the album, there are undeniable references to the war and the Holocaust. "Vera Lynn," "In the Flesh," and "The Trial" are all songs in which direct Holocaust referencing is used. Perhaps Hitler had a wall as well?

Of course, there are a myriad interpretations and levels upon which the film can be viewed. I hope that for years to come, no one forgets this film and the lasting impression it leaves.

Beastmaster III: The Eye of Braxus (1996 TV Movie)

Best B-movie ever

[1/10 · 27 January 1999]

Here, let me get this out of the way: this movie SUCKS. Big time. There are absolutely NO redeeming qualities about this movie. None whatsoever. Except it's hilarious to watch with friends.

My friends and I have watched quite a few bad movies in our time, but this is the all-time champ of B-movies. Sure, "Plan 9" might suck more, but this one is more fun to watch. And it's also great to see Casper Van Dien in one of his first roles. I recommend this one to any B-movie enthusiast. It is the best. Long live Dar! Shirac!

Shakespeare in Love (1998)

Bravo!

[10/10 · 29 December 1998]

In a holiday season so full of movies that so closely missed their mark and earned a respectable four out of five stars, it's quite a breath of fresh air to finally see a film so deserving of a full five out of five. Wonderful acting is combined with a brilliant screenplay and meticulous attention to being a period piece in John Madden's latest film, "Shakespeare in Love."

While the premise is somewhat kitschy, the screenplay is brilliantly run along its lines and the acting is just superb. Joseph Fiennes plays a struggling young William Shakespeare who finds that his writing abilities have been of late dissipating rapidly. In desperation, he tries to launch a new play, prematurely entitled "Romeo and Ethel the Pirate's Daughter."

At tryouts, Shakespeare is none too impressed with the abilities of the players until the final actor takes the stage. This actor, however, is reluctant to be encountered by the over-eager Shakespeare and makes a hasty retreat.

All is shown to the audience that this actor is truly Viola De Lesseps, who is soon to be betrothed to the detestable Lord Wessex, played by Colin Firth. However, as women were not allowed to enter onto the theatre stage in 1593, Viola continues to assume the identity of a man and returns to the playhouse, only to be cast in the part of Romeo.

Viola's ruse is soon discovered by Shakespeare and they fall madly in love, which is where the movie really takes off. Joseph Fiennes and Gwyneth Paltrow are magnificent together and absolutely shimmer onscreen. The screenplay, by Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard, is a treat in itself and even some of Shakespeare's writing is creatively interspersed in the script.

Truly a film not to be missed and one that will hopefully enjoyed by many this holiday season. Five stars out of five; don't miss this one!

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Oh, my.

[24 December 1998]

Well, I've had some time on my hands recently, as I am on Christmas break, and I decided a few movies would be a good way to waste my time. Let me make it clear now, Kubrick's 2001 was definitely a good way to *waste* that time. I wish I had read the book, because this film was such a confused and muddled mess, I hardly know where to begin.

For starters, the multitudes of strange and artificially created gravity fields in the ships were so mind-bogglingly unuseful that it wasted the time Kubrick took finding ways to pull that stuff off. The special effects are remarkable, especially for its time period, but why do the ships move so slowly? Another IMDB user (no offense) commented that the 'realistic pace' of space flight is slow and 'leisurely.' Since when? Space is pretty much just that... SPACE. There's nothing around for *light years*. To get anywhere, space ships, even the ones we use nowadays, go at tremendous speeds. If it was otherwise, no one would get anywhere!

Anyway, the movie may be trying to be artistic, but it fails unless the viewer is captivated. I got so bored during this movie, I regressed to making MST3K-like comments with my stepdad. It's actually pretty entertaining that way. I honestly believe that this movie would be *much* better had I read the book. Unfortunately, Kubrick relies too heavily on our imagination or our knowledge of the book to get the points of this movie across. In my view, pretty much a long and boring movie. And don't call me a cynic or an uneducated fool. Those who do might want to try to take an objective point of view in watching the movie. One might discover the horrible truth about the emperor's clothes.

Citizen Kane (1941)

The best of all time?

[23 December 1998]

Well, I did something I haven't done in a while last night; I went out and rented a movie. After hearing all the hype and kudos that have been deposited upon this Orson Welles' classic, I decided I should watch it for its astounding accolades if for nothing else. Truly, a magnificent movie, but the best of all time? That's a stretch.

Made in 1941, I can see where it puts everything of its time or before to shame, but I can't see it beating everything made since. Definitely a good movie, but it really consists of not much more than an intricate and albeit wonderful character sketch. I thought Welles' acting was impressive, but others were not quite so entertaining, and its not the most entertaining movie, either. My friend fell asleep watching it, which gives me evidence on this front.

A film needs to do two things if it intends to be memorable or considered a form of literature. First, it must entertain. This means keeping people riveted, in order to not miss anything. Second, it should make its statement. If the first is not achieved, it is found that much of the purpose is lost. I can see where many experts and movie pros can keep themselves entertained watching this film, as the meticulousness of Welles is astounding. However, to the average viewer (and my friend), the film is not so entertaining. All in all, a fantastic movie for those who like to watch and expound upon the extreme care taken in its production, but not the best of all time.

The Prince of Egypt (1998)

Bravo!

[20 December 1998]

Well, the holidays are once again upon us, and along with the onset of all of the shopping frenzy comes the holiday movie rush. "The Prince of Egypt", with its impressive cast and absolutely fantastic imagery looks to make a good run over the Christmas break, as well it should. Joining Val Kilmer (as Moses) on the role call is Ralph Fiennes as Ramses, Sandra Bullock as Miriam (Moses' sister), and Michelle Pfieffer as Moses' wife, Tzipporah. Indeed, none of the acting talent of the voicers is lost in any possible limitations of animation. The characters do express emotion thoroughly, lending to the conclusion that Dreamworks SKG really were paying extreme attention to making this movie more than just a cartoon.

Some of the old crutches of feature-length animated films are still in place, however. The bumbling sinister sidekicks are in place, but thankfully aren't used enough to become extremely tiresome. SKG must've realized that in a movie such as this, there was no need for such characters.

What SKG stumbles over most in this otherwise fantastic film is the music. The themes in the songs don't seem to convey the themes brought up in the script very well, and many of the lyrics seem contrived. However, what directors Brenda Chapman and Steve Hickner lose in the musical direction is made up for in plenty with the awesome animation. A beautiful blend of digitized and hand drawn animation, the vivid scenes and landscapes in "The Prince of Egypt" seem to jump off the screen with their vibrant rendering. Never before have I seen an animated movie with such breathtaking artistry. If for nothing else, go see this movie for its incredible animation. In essence, though, "The Prince of Egypt" is a (welcome) retelling of the story of Moses and the liberation of the Hebrews from their enslavement by the Pharaoh Ramses. Moses' tale is an Easter story by nature, as evidenced by the broadcoast of Cecil B. DeMille's "The Ten Commandments" on ABC every year. Hopefully, by Easter 2000, ABC will have the rights to broadcast "The Prince Of Egypt", because Val Kilmer and Moses' animators do a job Charlton Heston never could have. The story itself is different from The Bible and DeMille's classic in several ways, but doesn't suffer too much from it. Unfortunately, the story isn't conveyed extremely well for newcomers, as it is fairly choppy from theme to theme, although those who do know the story will have no problem following and enjoying this one. The writing and emotional subplots are well wrought, and surpass many previous attempts at making cartoons seem more human. Hopefully, this movie will set a tone for future animation directors to go beyond the formula that seems to be dragging down many of today's cartoons. Overall, a wonderfully enjoyable film and extremely deserving of a rating of four stars out of five.

Dolemite (1975)

What a movie!

[24 November 1998]

I have so far seen this movie twice, and both times, I have been astounded by it. This has got to be one of the, if not the, worst movie ever made. The acting is well, bad (put mildly). The script is worse. The special effects are atrocious (i.e. "The Shadow Kick of Doom!"). But of course, I love it. How many times does one have to see the microphone come into the picture to appreciate the lack of quality in the film-making? How many times can Dolemite miss his enemies completely and still win each fight? No one knows, and I'm sure no one cares. Blacksploitation at its finest and worst.

Enemy of the State (1998)

Technological thriller meets expectations

[7/10 · 22 November 1998]

In the 1970's and 1980's, a rash of spy movies were released, all with relatively similar plots and characters. However, we soon tired of this genre and we went looking for something new and exciting: the technological thriller. Although the two themes are fairly similar, techno-thriller movies tend to depend more heavily on society's supposed paranoia about the advancement of technology. The latest installment of this theme, starring mediocre Will Smith and the reliable Gene Hackman, is one of the best of its kind. After disappointments like "The Net" and "Johnny Mnemonic", "Enemy of the State" offers some new life to the genre, but is by no means perfect. The movie starts off slowly, but builds rather quickly with plenty of suspense and action to go around. Unfortunately, the acting is less than superb and there is an abundance of Will Smith's vapid one-liners. Centering around Smith and a well obfuscated tape of a congressman's untimely demise, the movie runs full speed ahead with little or nothing to get in its way until the violent and cathartic ending. There are a few ugly cliches and unoriginal themes thrown into the mix, yet the movie maintains its ability to proffer up good fast-paced action and accordingly dire implications up until the end. I must say that I commend Bruckheimer whole-heartedly on his casting decisions. Hackman, star of a few spy movies in his day, gave a commendably cynical performance, and many familiar faces were welcome in this youthful cast. Jason Lee, of "Mallrats" and "Chasing Amy" makes a disastrous appearance, and Jake Busey pops up sporadically from the mob of antagonistic thugs. All in all an enjoyable film and equally deserving of four stars out of five.

Godzilla (I) (1998)

what a stupid movie

[1/10 · 18 November 1998]

it's been said before... actually, about 95 times before, but i just have to reiterate... this movie was so bad, it bored me to tears... i cried because i felt i needed to sit through the rest of the movie to give people enough examples of why NOT to see it... what a gross piece of garbage... science is totally ignored... as is acting... and, oh! scriptwriting... and plot too... actually, just about everything in the movie-making process is ignored, except for the special effects... and that bothered me too... if you're going to make a godzilla movie, make it obvious that you are trying to make it campy, and also quit using computer generated effects! to me, there is no godzilla if it isn't a big japanese guy jumping up and down in a rubber suit... that's all i have to say about that.

Titanic (1997)

ugh

[17 November 1998]

I'm so glad to finally be able to get a sensible forum to utterly destroy this movie as it ought to be destroyed. What a horrible movie! I am utterly disgusted with the fact that this movie was even nominated for best picture. The rest of the films were outstandingly well made. The "Titanic" sunk, and I am grateful. First off, this movie was way too long. And why were Kate and Leo even THERE? What purpose did they serve other than to try to humanize the movie by introducing a devastatingly unoriginal and lamely wrought love story? The only purpose I could see was to lure people in and hit them with all the accustomed commercialist junk we always get nowadays. I saw the same, if not a better love story in Aladdin! And whose idea was it to have perfect characters?! Leo is the perfect poor boy! Billy Zane is the evil suitor! Kate Winslet is the femme fatale! None of the writers seemed to realize this, and gave them what would have been classic movie parts without any grace or charm that the actors could manageably pull off. I left the theater utterly disgusted and reflecting, I should have seen L.A. Confidential or Good Will Hunting again. Those were films. Titanic was a waste of time and money, and I'm glad I have convinced all that I could convince to not see it.

Dead Poets Society (1989)

Bravo!

[17 November 1998]

Seeing this movie when it first came out, I must admit I didn't appreciate its complete value. Then again, I was only 7. I recently bought this film and never tire of watching it. This is possibly the best movie I have ever laid eyes on, and one that will never be forgotten, so long as I can help it. As an aspiring film critic and hopefully one day an English teacher as well, I feel that this film embodies the essence of what a teacher should and could be. First and foremost, the teacher needs to be a mentor. He or she must inspire and lead the scholars in their (often times reluctant) search of truths. The teacher's style must be different and unique. I have seen too many great minds wasted in the public school system after teaching years and years of the same exact curriculum. Finally, the teacher must be a friend and connect with his or her pupils on a level that will truly open their eyes and help them connect better with their world. Not just with the literature, or the poetry, or the theatre, but also with their own thoughts and their own beliefs. Robin Williams does a magnificent job giving us this message, and I am still struggling over whether or not to show this movie in my future classes. His supporting cast is magnificent and I applaud each young man whole-heartedly. This is a wonderfully wrought story and (almost ironically) gives myself and apparently many others a new insight into why they must live every day to its fullest extent.

The Princess Bride (1987)

whee!

[17 November 1998]

Looking at this movie from a completely cinematic angle, one realizes that the acting is botched terribly by many (ahem, Buttercup, ahem), everything is wholly unrealistic, and the writing is terrible; there are some truly throw-away lines, especially by Buttercup. And yet, the movie will always remain one of my all-time favorites among other such cinematic abominations as Rocky Horror Picture Show and Four Rooms. I have been watching this movie since I was 7, and I doubt I will ever stop. And to (duly) shower praise upon Rob Reiner's head, there has never been a buddy movie that has come close to rivaling Fezzik and Inigo's wonderful chemistry. And there has never been a better, awful, movie.