Reviews

7 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The Cell (2000)
Whoah
18 August 2000
I agree wholeheartedly with Roger Ebert - "The Cell" is one of the best films of 2000. It is beautifully disgusting and disgustingly beautiful all at once. Tarsem has created a movie which realize an non-typical fear: having your body follow your mind. As is mentioned in the film, the body can be tricked by the mind into believing what it sees is real - a problem tackled with grace and an immediate solution here.

Despite the beautiful visuals, the acting is minimal. And, actually, I mean that in a good way. The dialogue is sparse - the visuals are the obvious stars. But the spurts of dialogue are immensely important. They frame the story, accentuate the finer points such as the different types of schizophrenia affecting Carl and Edward. (as an aside on the subplot with Edward - I would've loved to have seen his parents reaction after Catherine went into Carl's mind.)

The film has numerous scenes which will no doubt become infamous in years to come: D'Onofrio's Carl Stargher marching down the steps from his throne as his curtains/cape flows behind him; Stargher hanging above the body of a victim; King Stargher playing another character's intestine as if it was a music box; Lopez's flashy dominatrix uniform as well as her gorgeous "imitation" of the Virgin Mary (which, quite honestly, I don't see what all the fuss was about - the scene in which this appears is not graphic and is probably one of the calmest in the film.)

All-in-all, I was stunned. This is by-far (in my opinion) the best film out so far this year. If the Academy overlooks this film (in the effects department anyway) come February, I will incredibly shocked.

Kudos to Jennifer Lopez, Vincent D'Onofrio, Vince Vaughn and Tarsem Singh for an intense experience.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Gideon (1998)
A Refreshing Little Film
10 October 1999
I just watched this movie on STARZ! a little while ago and, while it isn't a masterpiece, it was pretty refreshing...and it was well-made. It's got a great cast of characters---namely the "golden" actors and actresses that haven't really gotten the respect or screen time they deserve in their later years. Actors and actresses like Shirley Jones, Charlton Heston, Barbara Bain, Harvey Korman, Carroll O'Connor, Mike Connors and Shelley Winters. Plus, it's got a nice little cast of younger actors including Christopher Lambert in the title role, Crystal Bernard, Taylor Nichols and Mykelti Williamson.

The basic premise of the film was a bit shady to me at first. I mean, out of nowhere a young man---who is apparently a little slow in the mind---shows up at a retirement home (he was sent by his "Aunt Edna") and instantly becomes the best friend of everyone, especially Addison (Charlton Heston), who we learn was a professor of philosophy at a university for 22 years. I loved Charlton's role in this movie. It was nice to see him doing something calm and fun for once. Another rather amusing character is Leo, played by Carroll O'Connor, who is constantly cracking jokes and poking fun at all of his "friends." A chef before he was admitted to the home, he always has something to say about the food. This character was very reminiscent of Connor's role as Archie Bunker on "All In The Family" and it's a welcome return in my opinion. Shirley Jones and Shelley Winters were terrific, Shirley as a friendly elderly woman who is loved by Addison, Shelley as the mean old broad who co-operates the Lakeview Retirement Home with her doctor son, Richard, played by Taylor Nichols. Crystal Bernard plays Jean, a sweet nurse who instantly takes a liking to Gideon, who is played by Christopher Lambert. This was a real change of pace for Christopher, who is mainly known for movies like "Highlander" and "Mortal Kombat." I mean, he actually ACTS in this movie. Something I didn't know he could do. After all those nonsense action films, you'd think he'd have forgotten how to act. But, apparently, he's been keeping it tucked away. He is terrific as Gideon. I'm tempted to call it Oscar-caliber work only I know he'll never get nominated because he is Christopher Lambert. Mike Connors is a laugh as a sweet old former boxer who is trying to find a way to stand up for himself. Mykelti Williamson shines as a handy man who makes friends with Gideon and discovers one of his secrets---he can't read. Harvey Korman also brings a nice little touch to the film with his brief appearances where he asks if the phone calls that are received are for him. The final phone call is especially funny. However, my personal favorite was Barbara Bain as Sarah. After all these years, Bain has remained as beautiful as ever and can still act with the best of 'em. She was wonderful to watch onscreen.

Now, I must applaud Claudia Hoover, the director of the film, for her...bravery...in making such a movie. I don't know if this is her first attempt at filmmaking or not but either way it's a fine piece of work. You get a feel for the characters and you feel for the characters. While there were a few botched places here and there in the beginning, it quickly melded together into a delightful, funny, sweet, romantic and tearjerking film that will keep you wondering just what it was about Gideon that made him so special. Definitely check this out.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Psycho (1998)
Give The Movie A Break!
14 August 1999
This film was not as horrible as everyone said it was. Maybe if you're a big Hitchcock freak, you'd be disappointed. Completely understandable. However, for those of us who had never seen the original, this was a pretty fair intro to it. I actually just watched the original last night on Encore and, personally, found it rather boring for the 40 minutes after the death of Marion Crane. I mean, nothing really happens except Arbogast getting slashed and falling down the stairs. Otherwise, there ain't much to it.

I'll be the first to admit the film is a classic but I'm not afraid to criticize it simply because it's been touted as the best horror film of all time or because it's Hitchcock. It's definitely ONE of the best horror films but I wouldn't go so far as the best. And I, truthfully, had the same problem with the new one. While I thoroughly enjoyed, that 40 minute period is just straight up boring.

I must say that I enjoyed both versions equally and I didn't really see a problem with a remake. It's just a movie, if you don't like the idea of it, don't watch it. Simple.

Now for some of the aspects and some miscellaneous comments: For those of you out there who are upset about the butt shot after Anne Heche keels over in the shower...it was originally in the 1960 version. Hitchcock got the shot but never put it in because he knew it would most likely be rejected. So, all Van Sant did was simply fill in what couldn't be shown 38 years ago.

No harm in that. As for the masturbation scene...well, I don't know what to tell you about that. It was freaky but most of the people in the theater I went to started laughing at that scene. So, it really didn't bother me. The whole supposed lesbian thing with Julianne Moore's character I never quite picked up...was she supposed to be a lesbian? I heard she was but never saw an indicator...who knows?

My basic point is this: It's a remake. Whoopee. The only reason it's being so harshly criticized is because people simply can't believe it was remade SHOT-FOR-SHOT (mostly). So maybe Van Sant shouldn't have done it almost identical to the original. But I don't see it as a big deal, quite personally. It's not a masterpiece but (in my opinion) neither was the original. Hitch made much better movies than this, among them "The Birds," "Frenzy," "Topaz," "Rope," etc., etc....this is just another remake in my opinion. So, basically, just be a little less picky if you watch this and you're a huge fan of the original.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Something Odd...
18 July 1999
Which was exactly what this film was. Like many people, I'm not really sure WHAT I think of this film right now. It was odd yet it was constantly compelling. And as for the sex: got news for ya folks, there ain't a lot of it. Save for the orgy scene(s), some fantasy stuff and the scene which the teaser trailer came from (the one with the Cruises making out in front of the mirror), it's mainly a lot of subplots that are based around sex and that are about sex but not necessarily featuring sex itself.

As for the performances themselves, I'll try to give a brief "review" of each of the main actor's roles. First, Tom. Tom is AMAZING in this film. His character portrays such a wide variety of emotions---everything from pure horniness to shameful tears---that you're pulled deeper and deeper into his character's life with each outburst of emotion. As for Nicole...she should've been in more of the film. However, her role is great. Alice is portrayed as everything---a slut, a bitch, a loving mother, etc.---and you do really feel sorry for her during what I call her "dream confessional." She has a great role to work with and has the best line in the final scene...you'll know what I mean when she actually mutters it. Sydney Pollack seems like a prime candidate for a Best Supporting Actor nomination come spring and it would be well-deserved. He has a great character and a great role. Marie Richardson---the woman who took over Jennifer Jason Leigh's role---really doesn't have much of a role. 5-6 minutes and she's gone. And, unfortunately, a lot of the characters have that problem. Especially poor Leelee Sobieski who only has one or two lines throughout the whole movie. Her nympho act is pretty convincing though, I must admit. Vinessa Shaw---a prostitute in the film---has a nice, meaty role to play...too bad she doesn't have a larger part. And her character turns out with a bad...well, you'll see. And Thomas Gibson---who plays Clark, Marie Richardson's fiance in the film---has a really, really small part---4 minutes overall, I'd say. And finally, Madison Eginton, who plays Tom and Nicole's daughter, is absolutely adorable. Even though she has a small role, hers is pivotal to her parents lives and you'll see what I mean when you watch the film yourself.

The orgy scene could've gone un-edited if you really want the truth. Nothing you probably haven't seen on SKINemax once or twice.

Overall, 'Eyes Wide Shut' was very enjoyable. Just don't be looking for a wild sex romp.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Omen (1976)
Very...Frightening.
6 July 1999
And that's to say the least. This film shocked me in so many ways. The decapitation scene was the biggest shocker especially since, at first, I wasn't really paying attention to what kind of truck that was...talk about SHOCK! Lee Remick's two "falling scenes" were horrifying, especially the second one. The fact that this family is pretty much just ripped apart from the inside out makes it even creepier. The first step is the disposal of the first nanny and the introduction of a new one. The second step is the death of the new baby which is handled pretty swiftly. The third step is...well, watch it and you'll see what I mean.

A must-see for any TRUE horror fan!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Mummy (1999)
Pretty Freakin' Good
14 June 1999
This movie was nowhere near as bad as I had expected. It was pretty good considering the genre it was coming from. And everyone saying that it wasn't "intelligent" or whatever I have one word: DUH! It wasn't supposed to be intelligent...it was supposed to be fun! You can't honestly say that some part of the movie didn't creep you out or make you laugh. And whoever compared this to "Deep Impact"---what planet are you from?! I mean, not to be rude, but they don't even belong in the same category. "Deep Impact" was an intelligent film. "The Mummy" was a senseless film. But it was great anyway. Good way to unwind.

I have to say, though, the one thing that really surprised me in the film was Arnold Vasloo. He was AMAZING! And the fact that he spoke absolutely no English during the entire film just amazes me more. Even if you hate the film, Arnold Vasloo's performance should be enough to keep your interest.

All-in-all---definitely not the best film ever made. And I doubt it was attempting that feat. But, it's pretty freakin' good considering some of the crap produced nowadays.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Absolutely Amazing
14 June 1999
This is one of the few films I can honestly say I love. Sigourney Weaver's acting simply blows the viewer away. You honestly can feel her pain as she relives her torture at the hands of Kingsley's character. And Ben Kingsley delivers one of his most powerful performances ever onscreen. Normally, he plays these quiet characters. But in this film, he's a talkative, uppity, deceiving and sure of himself. And Stuart Wilson nails his characterization of Escobar. His blundering and confused state throughout is perfectly portrayed.

The sense of claustrophobia lingers with you from the very first scene of the film. Even in the auditorium, the fact that the camera focuses on only the three main characters gives you that feeling of being closed in with them. And then the set, which is basically just the Escobar home, only enhances the feeling.

Roman Polanski created one of his best pieces of work with this film. Absolutely amazing.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed