LeonardZelig Reviews

Pay It Forward (2000)

A good premise does not equal a good movie. Here's proof.

[25 March 2001]

I'm sure you've heard the premise behind Mimi Leder's "Pay It Forward." It's a really wonderful one. A young boy (Haley Joel Osment) gets an idea for how to change the world. Okay, maybe the premise isn't all that good, but his idea sure is. Do something really nice for three different people, and they in turn must do something really nice for three more people. Believe it or not, I've tried it. If nothing else, it makes people very happy. As far as changing the world... I don't know. Maybe.

Changing the world is just what this movie tries to do. Or if not that, at least make sure everybody leaves the theater in tears. The movie is nothing if not shamelessly manipulative. What is even sadder than this is that the actors are so good. Then again, it's sort of obvious why they're good. Two Oscar-winners plus one Oscar-nominee clearly equals Oscar, right? Wrong.

I am geniunely concerned by how sex is becoming so casual on screen. Sex as plot element is all right, or at least acceptable. ("The Graduate" is my personal favorite example.) Sex as the obligatory thing that people do when they're in love is not. What is just as disturbing is the fact that, in the case of "Pay It Forward", sex is seen as being the ultimate goal of the relationship. There is a point in many films where the audience is fully aware that two people are in love. In Disney fare it's a fairly passionate kiss with a choir trying to soar in the background. Here, it's sex. Sex without commitment. Sex that, we're lead to believe, will make everything okay.

Don't get me started on the ending. It's so shameless, so unnecessary, so contrived that I could just vomit. I can picture a team of writers hunched around a table, squealing with glee as they write the last few scenes of the movie. "This'll make those poor saps cry," they're saying to themselves. Well, some people cried, but I didn't. I was too busy busy being sickened.

"Pay It Forward" ultimately possesses the subtlety and finesse of a three car pileup, except that it is possible for somebody to walk away unharmed from the latter. I've heard that "Pay It Forward" has a lot of Oscar buzz. I listened, and I couldn't hear it. Instead, I got stung.

** (out of ****)

Vertical Limit (2000)

On second thought, don't hold your breath.

[25 March 2001]

Martin Campbell's "Vertical Limit" begins with a shot of a canyon that is nothing short of breathtaking. I'm lost, staring at the screen in utter amazement. What beauty! What photography! Unfortunately, within a few seconds, an enormous bird glides onto the screen. It was probably meant to be a hawk, but it's so poorly made you can't be sure. You would think in this day of amazing digital capabilities, they could at least afford a realistic looking bird.

The rest of "Vertical Limit" continues in this manner. Sure, there are moments of extreme grandeur, but they're always interrupted by something so horribly fake that it's simply painful. The result is one of the most bloated films I've ever seen. Everything is either overdone or done poorly. Take the script. Or better yet, don't. Besides the fact that it's completely illogical and chock full of cliches, the basical story is dead on its feet. The "heroic rescue team risks its life to save their friends" is certainly serviceable. The idea of six people strapping nitroglycerine to their backs is not. There's also James Newton Howard's soundtrack, which is so bad to the point of being offensive. It's obvious that "Vertical Limit" is intended for people of limited mental capacity, and the musical score confirms this. Nothing of any interest can happen without a dramatic flurry from the orchestra. In fact, it's not just when something interesting is going on. It's all the time. I'm thinking of one particular instance where there is nothing going on at all, and suddenly there's a "Titanic"-esque panflute solo. Come on, people. This is ridiculous.

Martin Campbell knows how to direct. (Remember "Mask of Zorro"?) Here I guess he simply chose not to. Actually, that's not quite fair. He deserves some praise for making a movie that, for the most part, looks really good. Or maybe this is just because of the camera work, which is as stunning as it is overdone. Yes, that's it. It's the camera work. What Campbell did manage to do is get terrible performances from a very capable cast. Not that I can blame them in the least. When the material you're given to work with is this bad, decent acting isn't a possibility.

"Vertical Limit" tries to be everything and ends up being nothing. There are parts that are clearly aimed at being exciting, engaging, or romantic, but they fail across the board. If your reason for going to the movie theater is to have your intelligence insulted for almost two hours, then this is clearly the film for you.

* 1/2 (out of ****)

The Insider (1999)

A phenomenal film of awesome social importance.

[25 June 2000]

Is it really possible to say that an seven-time Oscar-nominated film is under-rated? I think, with Michael Mann's "The Insider," it is very possible. This is more than a good movie, it's a masterpiece. In fact, I would say that it is the second-best film of 1999. In my opinion, this is a superior film to "American Beauty."

This film has many good things about it, but there are two that really jumped out at me. The first is a phenomenal, passionate performance by Russell Crowe. He becomes Wigand, and it is truly not a glorious role. But it is an honest role, and Crowe plays it honestly. Wigand is a down-to-earth man, like you or me, but he knows something, and he feels that other people need to know this as well. This is not intelligence that is driving him, exactly, it is ethics. I am not saying that Wigand is not intelligent, rather, that anyone who has ever felt the tug of ethics can relate to what he's feeling. Crowe is one of the boldest actors that we have, and this role is truly a risky one.

The second thing that really needs to be praised is the brilliant cinematography of Dante Spinotti. Great camera work is hard to come by. When a cinematographer takes too many risks, the viewer is disoriented. When not enough risks are taken, the film is boring. Spinotti gives this film a bizarre visual image that never disorienting, but, somehow (and i can't explain how), helps us see the characters in a very human perspective. That's why I chose to use the work "brilliant," because true brilliance is difficult to explain.

Like any film, this one is not perfect. The direction is, at times, too heavy-handed, and we become a little bit aware of the film's length towards the middle (this is perhaps the fault of the writers), but no film of recent years sees a social problem so clearly and deals with it so honestly.

**** out of ****.

Dogma (1999)

Kevin Smith has something to say with "Dogma." Listen.

[8 January 2000]

WARNING! POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD!

Kevin Smith's "Dogma" has been called a lot of things. Some consider it to be anti-religious. Others see it as a satire of organized religion. I consider it to be one of the finest and most profound faith-related films I've seen for a long time, maybe even ever.

I myself am not Catholic, exactly. I'm a Christian, of which Catholicism is a branch of. Part of me is, honestly, somewhat surprised I even took the time to see "Dogma," what with how it was condemned by various churches and all, but I also heard that it spurs a lot of thought concerning religion and beliefs. Still, I guess what is important is that I saw it. Also, I'm not a fan of Kevin Smith's films. Actually, I might be after seeing "Dogma," which is the first of Smith's films I've ever seen. I've heard of "Chasing Amy," and it's been recommended to me, but I've never seen it. I may have to now.

The real misunderstanding about "Dogma," I think, is the language. Admittedly, there is an awful lot of language, probably too much. Particularly the character of Jay (Jason Mewes) spouts profanities like it's going out of style. It is also somewhat unusual to have a priest played by none other than George Carlin, the last person one would expect to see in a film dealing so much with religion. Maybe it's also that God is played by none other than Alanis Morissette. Still, it's easy to see why it could be seen as anti-religious. The fact is, Kevin Smith has things of real value to say about the church, and, even though he says them in ways that may be offensive to some people, he does say them. For me, the film was not offensive, perhaps because I have a high level of tolerance for that type of material.

I recommend "Dogma" to anyone who is struggling with their faith, anyone who wants something to think about for a while, but also people who are not easily offended. For me, "Dogma" has, if nothing else, made me interested in getting back to the Bible, and really uncovering more of it. "Dogma" makes religion alive and kicking, particularly in the form of personal faith, even though its ways of doing so are more than a little bit unorthodox.

Personally, I believe that God has a sense of humor. I think, upon seeing "Dogma," he laughed. He may have covered his ears a few times, but he still laughed, and he also probably saw a lot of good in "Dogma." I know I did.

**** out of ****.

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

As close as I'll ever get to combat.

[5 January 2000]

It may be silly to say this, but I feel like I just survived World War II. But that's silly, of course I never fought in World War II. I'm only eighteen years old. But I still feel like I survived the war, because I just watched Steven Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan."

With most reviews I write for IMDB, I begin writing with a sense of purpose. I know what I want to say and how I want to say it. This time I'm at a loss. "Saving Private Ryan" shocked me out of any senses I had left, it disturbed me more than many other movies films ever had. In fact, the only comparable film I can even think of is another by Spielberg, "Schindler's List." Both classify as what I call "super-realism." The film is so realistic, so believable that one immediately forgets that they are watching actors on celluloid and is transported to the actual event.

Such is the case with this entire film, especially the opening D-Day invasion. The outstanding acting crew of Tom Hanks, Edward Burns, Tom Sizemore, among others, become real soldiers. We fight along side them. When people suffer, we cannot help but feel their pain.

I think the most striking thing about this film from a technical perspective was the phenomenal cinematographer of Janusz Kaminski. As he did with "Schindler's List," Kaminski achieves a consistent newsreel effect, but this time the camerawork is more frantic, more likely to take us by surprise. Particularly during the D-Day sequence, we are as confused and blind-sided as many of the actual soldiers, and this adds to the intensity. Beyond Kaminski, everybody involved deserves a standing ovation, or perhaps more fittingly, a salute for making a film this great.

I feel like I'm getting hysterical, and I really don't want to. Suffice it to say that "Saving Private Ryan" is a phenomenal film capable of extraordinary emotional impact, able to make us week, tremble, and practically scream out with near-agony. This film conveys the truth about war, and only those who do not fear the truth will be able to watch it. Of course, a warning is needed. Few films are as graphically violent as this one, but few have as much of a reason to be.

If nothing else I've yet said made any sense, maybe this will. See "Saving Private Ryan." Or better yet, experience "Saving Private Ryan."

**** out of ****.

Starship Troopers (1997)

Brainless and maybe even brilliant.

[2 January 2000]

Paul Verhoeven's "Starship Troopers" is brainless, meaningless garbage. Its violence is gratuitous, its dialogue is sophomoric, and its manipulation of what I am sure is an excellent Robert Heinlein novel is shameful.

I loved it.

I ask that you keep the following in mind. I am an intelligent human being who has never liked a lot of violence in film. My favorite movies are those that leave me thinking and guessing, begging for more, like "The Truman Show" and "American Beauty." Yet, here is "Starship Troopers," a film that is all brawn and no brains, a movie that leaves you without a real genuine thought in the world. I think that's why I enjoyed it.

In the history of science fiction, the greatest films are (in my opinion) of the "Star Wars" variety. Here there are characters we care about, a plot that leaves us thinking, and, perhaps most importantly, a movie that we can watch with our families. Then came "Star Trek," where relationships are suddenly the most important issue, and problems are solved peacefully and intelligently. "Starship Troopers" throws a wrench in the sci-fi scene with meaningless characters, relationships, and violence.

Now I ask you, are very many movies this bold? When was the last time you saw a movie that knew full well it wasn't a great, intelligent movie, and didn't care? What was the last movie you saw whose sole purpose was neither to inspire or bewilder, but simply to entertain? For myself, "Starship Troopers" was a welcome breath of fresh air, a much needed vacation from more serious fare. It will not win any Oscars, but who cares? Certainly not the film makers. And neither should we, because "Starship Troopers" succeeds spectacularly in that it is entertaining. That should be enough.

***1/2 out of ****.

Man on the Moon (1999)

Good, but should have been better.

[27 December 1999]

Several hours have passed since I saw "Man on the Moon," and I'm still not quite sure what should be said about it. It is a peculiar film, to say the least, and it is unique in that it is a comedy with a sad ending, even though it is not really a comedy. ("American Beauty" is a similar film in that it is a tragedy with a happy ending, even though it is arguably not really a tragedy.)

I should say first that "Man on the Moon" will doubtlessly receive a great deal of critical praise, and the main reason will be Jim Carrey's performance. As a sort of a low-level movie buff, I can honestly say that I've seen a lot of movies, as well as a lot of great performances. I do not think it at all presumptuous to say that Jim Carrey's performance as Andy Kaufman is not only the best performance of this year, but one of the best of any year. I never thought I'd be able to say this, but I think Jim Carrey is one of the finest actors working today, as well as one of the most courageous. Sure, "Ace Ventura" may not have come even close to making the A.F.I. list, but Carrey has grown and matured. The first sign of this was with "The Truman Show," a fantastic film which set a precedent for Jim Carrey performances yet to come, and "Man on the Moon" is certainly up to the standard. Carrey deserves an Oscar for this role. As a comic figure he will probably not get it. The Academy never has taken comedians serious enough, so why should they start now? In summation, it is unfair to say that Jim Carrey plays Andy Kaufman, because the performance is seamless. Rather, Jim Carrey IS Andy Kaufman. Despite Carrey's immensely recognizable face, one forgets that it isn't Kaufman himself on the screen. Perhaps the most amazing thing about Carrey's performance is that we still do not understand Andy Kaufman after seeing it. If any other actor would have played Kaufman, they would have put their own unique stamp on him, making the audience think they understood Kaufman but in reality only understanding one actor's interpretation of Kaufman. Here, Carrey steps into Kaufman's shoes and changes nothing. In other words Jim Carrey is Andy Kaufman, not Jim Carrey's version of Andy Kaufman.

Enough about Carrey's performance. On to the actual film. A fan of much of Milos Forman's earlier work (particularly "Amadeus"), I was immensely disappointed with "Man on the Moon." The overall quality of the film is jaunty, disjointed, and rather nonsensical. Perhaps Forman's real flaw is that he realizes that Andy Kaufman is an unusual character and jumps to the conclusion that a film about him must be unusual as well. The result is a mass of characters whose motivations and thoughts make no sense to us and a film that is flawed at best. We should not understand Kaufman, but we should understand (mostly) everybody else, and this simply doesn't happen.

In a nutshell, "Man on the Moon" is a half-rate film which benefits immensely from a phenomenal performance by Jim Carrey. My rating of this film is very high, I know, but this is largely due to Carrey. If anybody else had played Kaufman I probably would have given the film closer to two stars.

***1/2 out of ****.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

The Force really wasn't with Lucas this time.

[16 November 1999]

Now, I really can't say that "Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace" is a terrible movie, because it isn't. However, I also can't say that it is in any way a fitting companion to such masterpieces as "A New Hope," "The Empire Strikes Back," and "Return of the Jedi." It is, in my opinion, a bad movie that could have been so much better. Allow me to elaborate.

George Lucas is, truly, an enigma. Not many people can envision characters like Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker, Indiana Jones, and Howard the Duck (sic). Also, not many seasoned, experienced filmmakers can make a movie that fails as much as this one. Lucas has terminally forgotten to write dialogue, and the result is a cast of characters about as deep and profound as their cardboard cut-out counterparts. Lucas has also forgotten how to hone in on the films strengths. Namely, these are (1) the special effects, (2) Liam Neeson, and (3) Natalie Portman. Predictably, the film is a visual wonder, but it is shallow. The effects are present only to make the audience ooh and ahh in breathless wonder, and it works for a few minutes, but in the long run, they fall short of what they should be. Liam Neeson is, of course, an outstanding actor. If you doubt, recall, if you will, "Schindler's List." This film wastes him as yet another shallow character which aspires to be another Obi-Wan Kenobi and fails miserably. Natalie Portman is, besides being one of the most beautiful young actresses working today, immensely talented. Well, we've already covered the fact that Lucas doesn't recognize talent, but he also doesn't recognize beauty. Portman's angelic face is successfully hidden underneath a despicable makeup job which, I think, tries to make her look ugly. Also, as Princess Amadala's "alter ego," Portman is so understated that she fails to make much of an impression. I admit, having a nice face in this film wouldn't have lifted it up from the depths of failure, but it certainly wouldn't have hurt matters any. Lucas has also forgotten to try to make the least of weaknesses. In this case, those are Jar Jar Binks and Jake Lloyd. Now, I have nothing against computer animated characters, but Jar Jar Binks should rot in Hades. He is obnoxiously, annoying, and altogether hideous. Enough about him. Also, I really don't want to hurt Jake Lloyd's feelings here, but his character was overused. Lloyd is truly an adorable kid, and very scrappy, but it also seems as if he studied at the Mark Hamill School for Acting, pulling off one "aw shucks" after another. Also, he said "Yippee!!!" about three times too many for my taste.

Oh, this film does have one redeeming factor that I can tell. John Williams' score is, of course, fantastic. That's about it.

So, what am I really saying? The "Star Wars" extended trilogy should certainly be continued, but I seriously think our friend George Lucas should stand aside and let someone else try his hand at making the next two films. Trust me, it will help.

** out of ****.

American Beauty (1999)

Life is Beautiful (with apologies to Roberto Benigni)

[9 November 1999]

Yesterday had, for me, the potential to be a really bad day. My schedule was hectic and, truly, there weren't enough hours in the day for everything that had to be accomplished. Under normal circumstances, I would have complained the entire day. However, I just saw Sam Mendes' "American Beauty," so the circumstances were anything but normal. I honestly couldn't complain because of how much beauty was in the world.

This is, in a nutshell, the basic philosophy of "American Beauty," one of the finest films any of us will ever see. Like most summaries, the above is also a gross oversimplification. The movie is so much deeper, so much more eloquent than any words I could ever say.

The movie is, I think, completely flawless. And, to think that director Sam Mendes and writer Alan Ball are rookie filmmakers! The film appears to be the work of seasoned veterans who got especially lucky in the studio. In addition to that, experienced cinematographer Conrad Hall delivers a predictably outstanding visual production. The acting is marvelous across the board, particularly from Kevin Spacey and relative newcomer Wes Bentley. All of the characters are seen as real people, and the audience is, of course, electrified.

A warning is, of course, in order. While "American Beauty" is a superb piece of film, it is also decidedly adult. There is a great deal of profanity, sexual content, and nudity, but it is never gratuitous. This is not a film for children. However, whoever can handle it will experience a truly phenomenal film. The circumstances are not extremely realistic, and they are not meant to be. But I guarantee, you will identify with the characters despite the absurdity.

"American Beauty" is, in my opinion, a profound cry for meaning in life, for beauty. There is plenty to go around, because I now realize just how beautiful life really is.

**** out of ****.

Mars Attacks! (1996)

This is it! This is my absolute favorite horrible movie!

[23 September 1999]

Oh, dear, this is embarrassing. I know that Tim Burton's "Mars Attacks!" is a terrible movie. I have no doubt of that. And yet, I really like it. In fact, I'm sure that this is my absolute favorite horrible movie. I watch it again and again, witnessing this miserable concoction of overdone special effects and cardboard characters, and I laugh! And yet, I ask you, why is it funny?

I see Jack Nicholson as "The President," and I laugh. What is funny about this, huh? I see the poor (stupid) family defending their trailer, and I laugh even harder. And everytime I laugh, I feel guilty, because it really isn't funny. In fact, it's just plain stupid.

Now, I'll try to say some good things about it. It's not easy, you know, but I'll try. The special effects and the production design are (typical for Burton) great. And yet, Burton lingers on them too much, showing us time and time again why this movie cost so much to make. It also has a few good lines, but thrown in with these are some of the worst lines I've ever heard, anywhere.

So, am I recommending this movie? No, never. Aww, heck, who am I trying to kid? I liked it a lot. In fact, you'll see that my rating of it isn't all that bad for a terrible movie. It is this way because, horror of horrors, I liked it, and I want to see it again. So sue me!

**1/2 out of ****.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)

A Great, Confusing Masterpiece

[23 September 1999]

I recently had a unique opportunity. I got to see Steven Spielberg's "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" with someone who had never seen it before. Indeed, it was thrilling to put myself in his shoes and realizing just how confusing the movie really is. The plot jumps around dangerously from one (seemingly) unrelated scene to another, leaving the audience in the dust several times. More often than once, my friend turned to me and said, "What the heck is going on?" I never did tell him, of course, partly because I didn't want to spoil the surprises, but also because I was watching it for the very first time, again. And then, there were the scenes that still leave audience members breathless, those scenes that pull us into the screen, as if our eyes have become magnets. It is not until the end of those scenes that we realize we've been holding out breath the entire time.

The film is great across the board. It was especially effective for Spielberg to write the screenplay himself, because for the first time, the script and the film shared the same marvelous, disjointed style. This is also one of John Williams's finest scores. Seriously, it beats the living heck out of more familiar soundtracks like "Star Wars" and "Indiana Jones." Also, the acting is absolutely superb, especially Richard Dreyfuss as Roy Neary, the innocent bystander who is suddenly thrown in the middle of all of it.

I do have one slight criticism, and I fear that it really damages the overall effect of the film. My rating on the film would be higher if this one thing had been changed. (Warning: This is sort of a spoiler!) When the alien vessel is communicating with the humans, why did Spielberg decide to use a tuba sound? Seriously, it throws away the idea of the aliens being so "out of this world," and sounds altogether silly, in my opinion. Still, considering that this is my only complaint with the film, it's still "one of the great ones." Do yourself a favor and see it.

***1/2 out of ****.

The Matrix (1999)

Don't Trust What You See

[20 September 1999]

"The Matrix" is the kind of movie that really shouldn't be taken too seriously, I think. Either that, or it's not being taken seriously enough. If you wanted to get all supernatural and philosophical about "The Matrix," you could. I just wouldn't recommend it too much.

The movie itself is one of the finest sci-fi/action films I've ever seen, if only because of how much it wracks your mind. The special effects are simply out of this (and probably any other) world. Half of the time, you're not quite sure what you're really seeing, and you're not sure if you even want to be, for that matter. The special effects are so good, in fact, that I can't at the moment think of any other film with any quite as good. I really don't have a clue as to how any of them were done. All I am sure of is that the Wachowski Brothers must have had a lot of fun playing tricks on the audience, and they do one heck of a job on it as well.

The story itself is great too, and very well acted, particularly by Keanu Reeves (Neo) and Laurence Fishburne (Morpheus). Their characters are three-dimensional in that they are sci-fi "heros" with feelings, emotions, and believable personalities. I say "feelings" and "emotions" with caution, because this is surely not a mushy film whatsoever. This is the type of storyline where everything (eventually) makes sense, where things fall into place without being contrived, and the end result is actually quite believable and convincing.

After I stepped out of the theater in which I saw "The Matrix," I looked around myself. The result was similar to "The Truman Show" in that I suddenly started to wonder what was real. The feeling passed, of course, and I began to see "The Matrix" as simply a great sci-fi/action film. Still, that's bad at all, is it?

***1/2 out of ****.

Bowfinger (1999)

One of the Best Comedies of Recent Memory.

[19 September 1999]

On the level, "Bowfinger" is an outstanding comedy. And it really is, don't get me wrong. There are single scenes in "Bowfinger" that are funnier than entire movies. And yet, it's also much more than that.

It isn't surprising that Steve Martin wrote this wonderful script, because he's been inside Hollywood for a pretty long time. He's seen the rise of Scientology, as well as the rise and fall of personalities. He's seen characters like those portrayed in "Bowfinger," and he makes them lovable and detestable at the same time. He portrays them as ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances, and we're laughing the whole way. There is, in my opinion, not a single dry moment in this movie. It's funny, witty, and scorchingly satirical from start to finish.

Steve Martin stars as Bobby Bowfinger, an out-of-work filmmaker who just wants a big break. He thinks he sees it in "Chubby Rain," and decides to go for it, no matter what.

Which brings us to the actual star of "Bowfinger," Eddie Murphy. Murphy stars as two characters, and I mean that very literally. He isn't one actor playing two similar guys, but his characters are each so distinct and definite. It's a marvel to see Murphy weave two such original characters out of Martin's wonderful material. Now, I ask you, why shouldn't Eddie Murphy be nominated for a Best Actor Oscar? Comedians do not get enough credit, and I've always believed that. For example, Jim Carrey should have at least been nominated for "The Truman Show," but, dear me, he made us laugh, at least he used to, and we just can't have any of that, can we? Eddie Murphy is, among other comedians, and outstanding actor, and he should be recognized as such.

"Bowfinger" also features a host of other amusing characters. Among them is the lovely Heather Graham, who makes a great follow up to her "Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me." Her character, Daisy, is determined to make it big, no matter what. There are many others, of course, but theirs are not familiar faces as of yet, but they will be, sooner or later.

Overall, "Bowfinger" is a wicked satire, a cunning comedy, and a chance for Eddie Murphy to really show what he can do. Don't miss it.

***1/2 out of ****.

There's Something About Mary (1998)

There's Something About "There's Something About Mary"

[19 September 1999]

That was really redundant, I know, and I apologize. But still, it's true. There's something about "There's Something About Mary." Something that really makes me laugh. The Farrelly Brothers have done it again with this one. It's unarguably sick, disgusting, and hilarious, and yet, there's a sweet side to it as well. Not much of one, mind you. This is still your typical sophomoric gross-out comedy, but it has brains this time around. The script is witty, intelligent, and very well paced, and the technical side of the movie is good without taking anything away from the comedy. It has this weird appeal to it that can make you love it and hate it at the same time.

It also has Cameron Diaz. There's something about her too. For starters, she's gorgeous. On top of that, she can act. Now, please don't misunderstand me here, because her acting in "Mary" can appear stupid and poorly-timed almost all of the time, but I think that was intentional. What it really proves is that, even though she acts like a complete idiot sometimes, there's still just something about her.

Let's not forget Matt Dillon and Ben Stiller, who add the conflict and the (forgive me for this one) suspense. Both play their parts with equal helpings of vim and vigor, and yet, they both act like complete idiots.

But all of this is relatively unimportant in the long run. What really matters is that this is one sick, hilarious movie. This is bodily function humor, locker room talk at its bawdy best. I recommend it to anyone who doesn't mind looking at things a bit differently, and who isn't offended easily, of course.

*** out of ****.

Dumb and Dumber (1994)

This Is A Dumb Movie. I Loved It!

[19 September 1999]

First, let me make this abundantly clear. "Dumb and Dumber" is a movie for guys. That is, this is a really really bad date movie. Girls just won't find it funny, in fact, they'll mostly just find it sick and tasteless. That's because it is sick and tasteless. Then again, so is all really good guy humor. Another reason not to see it with a girl is that you'll end up feeling guilty for laughing at it, simply because the girl is there.

I'm a guy. Still, I am a bit ashamed to say the honest truth: I love "Dumb and Dumber." And I don't mean that I kinda-sorta-maybe-a-little-bit liked it. I thought it was hilarious from start to finish.

For starters, it's dumb. That much is obvious from the title at least. I'll try to get beyond that, even though it isn't easy with a movie like this.

"Dumb and Dumber" stars Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels as complete idiots. I'm not saying this to be mean or politically incorrect, but to be truthful. They're just dumb. However, I also encourage you to rent "Gettysburg" and "The Truman Show." Here are the same guys in intelligent roles, and they're still good. This is the proof of great acting! The fact that these intelligent men can act like idiots puts both of them on my top ten list of actors.

Where do I go from there? Well, the comedy is typical bathroom comedy, with bodily function jokes, sex jokes, and then more of both of the above. Is it really funny? You betcha.

So, what am I really saying here? Just this: Guys, get a bunch of your guy friends together, get a pizza and a huge bottle of Coke. Sit around for a while telling dirty jokes and stuffing your face, and then watch "Dumb and Dumber." Be proud of your guy-ness, of your immaturity, of your testosterone! Here's to guys!

P.S. Bring along a few Mel Brooks movies too. Guys love them.

*** out of ****.

Inspector Gadget (1999)

It was a truly horrible movie, but...

[5 September 1999]

I want to make a point here, first of all. "Inspector Gadget" is not a great movie. It's not even a remotely good movie. In fact, it's a horrible movie, the type that knows it's insulting the audience's intelligence and gloats on this fact. But, dang it, I laughed. Not constantly, grant you, but enough for me to leave thinking, "That was funny." Horrible, but still decidedly funny.

Actually, "Inspector Gadget" gets fairly high honors in my book, because I'm forced to rate it as my second favorite terrible movie, the first being Tim Burton's "Mars Attacks!" The problem was that it was funny at places, and those places were almost enough to make it a funny movie.

Now, let me state the obvious. The script is horrid. Or maybe even worse than that. Let me put it this way: It's even worse than "Titanic," a lot worse. Also, David Kellogg's direction is idiotic, over-the-top, zany, and utterly revolting. The film stars quite a few talented figures, like Matthew Broderick and Rupert Everett, but they're all completely wasted.

Still, it's funny. What more can I really say?

** out of ****.

Titanic (1997)

The greatest film ever? I doubt that.

[5 September 1999]

"Titanic" has made a lot of friends since it first appeared in theaters, and I can't say that it doesn't deserve them. Certainly, parts of the film are superb, moving, and really unparalleled among other films. Then, there are those other parts that aren't. What really bothers me about "Titanic" is that the weakest elements of the film seem to be those that have garnered the most praise among fans. Allow me to elaborate.

For instance, there are the main characters, provided by Leonardo di Caprio and Kate Winslet. Besides setting off considerable sparks and possessing a great amount of natural chemistry, they accomplish very little. Actually, that's not completely true for Winslet, who may very well set the record for showing the most cleavage ever in a PG-13 film. But as far as characters, they are cardboard cut-outs who, while they look very good on screen, are doing little more than taking up space.

Of course, this isn't completely their fault. Both of these young actors can indeed act, believe me, I've witnessed it for both of them. The fact is, they didn't have much to work with, and here I am, of course, referring to James Cameron's script. Now, just to set the record straight, Cameron is a very talented fellow. He knows how to make a completely convincing fake ship sink, how to stage action scenes, and how to tell a story. Quite simply, he's a good director. No, no, he's a great director. But he's a horrible writer. His dialogue positively reeks of clichés and vainly-attempted humor. And, perhaps that explains why James Horner's fantastic score has so much of the limelight. Perhaps Cameron realized that his pathetic script wasn't enough to build drama and suspense, so he relied on the music to do that.

Now, on another level, the film is a technical masterpiece. The special effects, cinematography, editing, production design, and all of the other "back-stage" elements are simply superb. While "Titanic" unarguably cost an enormous amount of money, it's easy to see why. The money is right up on the screen, in all its glory, for all to see. Yet, is it fair to say that a film is great when only half of it truly is? I don't think so. On that note, I base my overall rating, knowing that it would have been far better if only Cameron swallowed his pride, put his ego on the shelf for a moment, and hired someone else to write the screenplay. Unfortunately, he didn't, so we have to suffer for it.

*** out of ****.

Election (1999)

A disguised satire with an awful lot of bite, and good laughs, too.

[3 September 1999]

Just so you know, I'll try not to give away any spoilers, but it won't be easy with a gem of a movie like Alexander Payne's "Election," where the characters are based largely on the spoilers, and where the inconsistencies in people make it all the more believable. Still, I'll try.

"Election" has the illusion of being a more-than-slightly perverted high school comedy, while it is, in reality, a stunningly sharp work of satire whose aim is far, far beyond any election for student council president. It's an especially good piece of film because of how realistic the characters are, for the most part. We know people like Tracy Flick (Reese Witherspoon), the type who always has their hand raised first, and knows full well that they know the perfect answer, the overzealous overachiever. We also know people like Paul Metzler (Chris Klein), dim-witted Mr. Popularity, the guy who everybody loves and can do no wrong, and of course, his jealous sister (Jessica Campbell) who is always in his shadow. We also know people like Jim McAllister (Matthew Broderick), the hard-working, dedicated high school teacher who wants nothing more than to reach the students, to really make a difference.

Or do we?

"Election" is about that question, I think, because everyone of these characters has a tragic flaw. Actually, tragic flaws, because there are quite a few. Initially, these inconsistencies are presented in ways that take us so off-guard they can be nearly offensive if one isn't ready for them. And yet, do we really dislike any of the characters? I didn't, that's for sure.

Compare this criteria to contemporary politicians. Take, for example, Bill Clinton, a dedicated, lovable sort of guy who everybody really likes. Oh yeah, and there was that little Monica Lewinsky thing. It's that sort of thing that turns the "Election" characters inside-out, realistic and unbelievable at the same time.

There is one more thing I really must point out, because I didn't realize it immediately after seeing the film. What you should know is that the film has a nearly happy ending, which is why the ending seems to stretch out for so long. Every character has, in a way, accomplished their real goal, their dream. And yet, there is certainly more than a little emptiness inside all of them, and they realize it too, of course.

**** out of ****.

Shakespeare in Love (1998)

Why bother comparing it to any other film? It's great on its own right.

[25 August 1999]

Lots of people don't like John Madden's "Shakespeare in Love," I think, mostly because it beat out Steven Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" for the Best Picture Oscar. But I'm not going to talk about that. Why? I'm not going to change anybody's mind, that much is obvious.

Well, if you want my opinion, "Shakespeare in Love" is a superb motion picture. It is, from every standpoint, a flawless piece of craftmanship. For starters, there is the acting, which is simply top-notch. This is clearly Gwyneth Paltrow's breakthrough performance, in which she truly delivers an Oscar-worthy performance. Her character is rich, vibrant, and wondrously alive. As is Joseph Fiennes' take on Shakespeare. Even though the Academy didn't see fit to honor him with even a nomination, that is not to say that his performance is bad by any means. I predict that Fiennes will become a leading man in his own right, thanks to this film, because it is now completely obvious that he is an actor of great depth and enthusiasm, which is something Hollywood greatly needs today. And who could forget Judi Dench? The lady is, I think, simply brilliant. Give her seven minutes of screen time and she turns out a virtual instruction manual on screen acting. Her take on Queen Elizabeth is witty, smart, daring, outrageous, and yet, deceptively simple, that is, all the things the Virgin Queen was herself. And, of course, there is also Ben Affleck and Geoffrey Rush, among others, whose work here sparkles with originality and vitality.

But lets get to the real core of what makes "Shakespeare in Love" a great film. There is John Madden's effortless direction, and, above all, the amazing script by Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard. Seriously, I can imagine people being left in the intellectual dust when they come face to face with this film, because it is what so many films aren't. It manages to be blazingly intelligent, romantic, exciting, funny, serious, light, profound, historical, and farcical all at the same time, among other things. The dialogue crackles with energy and originality, and the writers are clearly playing a sort of mental tennis match with the audience. In the end, both sides win, and it is a glorious victory.

**** out of ****.

Waking Ned Devine (1998)

Indeed, a rarity.

[19 August 1999]

It isn't often that a film comes along that is funny without being crude, heartwarming without being mushy, unpredictable without being too much so, and simple without being bland. But, bless my soul, "Waking Ned Devine" is just such a movie. There are so many unlikely comic scenes in this movie, that it's sort of like witnessing the birth of a whole new genre, I think.

This is really a wonderful film to share with friends and family. It's light, cheerful, feel-good cinema that is still surprisingly intelligent. Also, everything about the film is good enough to impress even the most die-hard film connoisseurs, from the acting to the writing, camera work to the direction, etc.

Hollywood can learn a lot from "Waking Ned Devine." Don't insult us, don't offend us, but give us good wholesome humor, and you've won us over.

***1/2 out of ****.

Schindler's List (1993)

Flawless, moving. A masterpiece.

[10/10 · 19 August 1999]

Let's set the record straight, once and for all. I do not like "Schindler's List." I do not enjoy watching it. If I'd have my choice, I'd never see it again, ever. But of course, I don't have any choice in the matter, because it's simply too disturbing to never see again. I don't believe there is any finer monument to the horrors of the Holocaust than Steven Spielberg's "Schindler's List." People may tell us of the horrors, of the concentration camps, of the deaths, but this film puts us there, among the survivors.

This is, of course, Spielberg's crowning achievement. As far as I am concerned, there is no other film ever made anywhere that has the power and emotion of "Schindler's List," least of all the technical expertise that is so evident here. For instance, Janusz Kaminski's frenetic camera work whips us through the ghettos in such a way that we can not help but be terrified, and yet is calm enough to let us catch a breath, cry a tear. This is also, in my opinion, John Williams' finest score. It is so sparse, so beautiful. For any classical music fans, I can only compare this score to Henryk Gorecki's Third Symphony, "A Symphony of Sorrowful Songs." But I'm getting off the topic.

The acting is flawless, with performances from the likes of Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes. And, of course Steven Zaillian's moving script that puts us everywhere, from the heart of the horror to the outskirts of it.

Let me go back to what I said at the beginning of this review. I do not like "Schindler's List." I love it. And yet, I don't love it quite it the way that I love any other film. What I can do is recommend it without reservation to anybody who has never seen it. There is no better film than this. Period.

Of special note, Spielberg apparently donated a copy of this film to every American high school. I can not thank him enough for that, because it was in class that I first saw "Schindler's List." I just pray that others have been as affected by it as I have.

**** out of ****.

Dead Poets Society (1989)

Carpe Diem!

[19 August 1999]

There are several lessons to be learned in Peter Weir's "Dead Poets Society," and while I could go into all of them here, the film teaches them far more eloquently than I ever could.

The movie also has several layers. For instance, there is Professor John Keating (Robin Williams). He's the new kid on the block, the teacher nobody quite trusts. He's willing to try absolutely anything to reach his students, and he does. As I watched Keating work his magic, I was reminded of all my greatest teachers, and it is obvious that Keating is largely taken from real life. Writer Tom Schulman only made up part of him, because there really are teachers as powerful and as daring as him. I've had many of them.

There are also the students played by Robert Sean Leonard, Ethan Hawke, and others. They are accustomed to book teachers, those who move through a text simply for the sake of doing it, with little or no concern for whether the students grasp any of it or not. Then they meet Keating, with his suggestions for changing our points of view, and his cries of "Carpe Diem!" Of course they change. They really have very little choice in the matter.

I refuse to spoil the ending. I will only tell you that it will blindside you if you have a heart, that you will realize all in one fell swoop that the teaching worked, that the students learned something, and, in the process, you learned a lot too.

**** out of ****.

The Truman Show (1998)

It defies explanation, yet it wins you over.

[18 August 1999]

It gives me great pleasure to see people try to explain Peter Weir's "The Truman Show." Even here at IMDB, the genre is listed as Fantasy/Drama/Comedy/Sci-Fi. And yet, is it really any of these? Anyone who's seen it will probably agree with me that it is sort of all of these, but not really any.

Let me begin by saying that Truman Burbank is my hero. I can't tell you why, exactly, except that I don't think I'd ever have the courage to do what he did. If you don't know what he did, see the movie. Truman is brilliantly played by the often un-brilliant Jim Carrey. He's a nice guy. We like him. We like his wife (Laura Linney). We like his best friend, Marlon (Noah Emmerich). In fact, we even sort of like Christof (Ed Harris), the media mastermind who created Truman's world and saw it fall apart. Think of Dr. Frankenstein's famous line: "I've created a monster!"

Every involved in this film should be saluted. Andrew Niccol's script is flawless, Peter Weir's minimalist direction gives even more energy and charisma to the production, etc, etc, etc. I could go on forever, but I won't. Suffice it to say that Truman's journey and discovery is one of the most moving and profound I've ever found in film. Who knew Hollywood could still make brilliant movies?

**** out of ****.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)

I almost embarrassed to say how much I loved this movie.

[18 August 1999]

Beware, oh ye of little senses of humor. All ye who enter here and still profess to have good taste should leave immediately, lest... Aw, heck, I don't know.

"Monty Python and the Holy Grail" is an exercise is bad taste, bad timing, bad writing, and yet, I love it. Why, I ask myself, time and time again, why? Because it's hilarious, you fool, and nothing can stop it from being just that. Every moment is, I'm convinced, bizarrely brilliant, in a perverted, off-color sort of way. I see it, and I laugh much too hard for my own good. There is the great Black Knight scene, of course, which is a masterpiece of bad film, and who could forget the Castle Anthrax, that sick fantasy for every teenaged boy? And then the ending comes, and one says to oneself, "That's the precisely wrong thing to happen there! It's horrible!" And then you realize that that's what the entire film is as well.

Do I recommend this film to anybody? Of course not! But please, do yourself a favor and see it anyway.

*** out of ****.

Citizen Kane (1941)

The #1 film ever made? Sure. Why not?

[10/10 · 18 August 1999]

The A.F.I. list came out not too long ago, and so everyone clamored to see what the number one film ever made was. Of course emotions were high, as well as tempers. Of course different people were rooting for different films, as to be expected. I remember the exact moment when I saw the list. It is actually in the latest issue of Newsweek magazine. Right there, in black and white, in the number one slot... "Citizen Kane."

I had never seen "Citizen Kane", actually, and the list prompted me to do so. When I saw the film itself, I was shocked. Here was a slight film, understated, and very simple, really, that had obviously rocked critics everywhere, that had done the impossible. Here is a first-time filmmaker trying something new, experimenting, if you will, and he ended up making what is considered the greatest film ever produced in America.

I wasn't disappointed. Welles' performance, as well as all of the others, were right on the money, the script was remarkable, and Gregg Toland's camera work took everything I thought to be reality, crumpled it up, and threw it away, never to be rediscovered.

I really see little reason to review "Citizen Kane" as a film. That has been done enough times, goodness knows. What I do see fit to do is recommend it. The average viewer will be bored, of course, because there is no action, no real adventure to be found. But there is drama, especially for any who see film as film, not so much as a story. There is suspense, I think, so many times, simply because of a camera move or a well-timed change in placement. This is film as film, not as anything else. Absolutely do not miss.

**** out of ****.