terrors89 Reviews

Vacancy (2007)

A few cliché's but good Intensity

[7/10 · 27 April 2007]

When it comes to intensity, there hasn't been a movie release in 2007 that has matched that of this movie. It reminds of the 2005 movie A History of Violence because it immediately grabs you and holds on to the end of the movie. Vacancy also reminds me of that movie because like Violence, Vacancy really doesn't have an ending that calms the viewer down either. It's not bad, but between that problem and a few cliché's, Vacancy is watch able but not outstanding.

David and Amy Fox, played by Luke Wilson (My Super Ex-Girlfriend) and Kate Beckinsale (click) respectively, are a married couple who are traveling back from the wife's parent's house when the car that they are driving breaks down on the side of the road at night. They check into a run down motel managed by Mason, played by Frank Whaley (World Trade Center) and try to wait it out until daybreak comes. As the Fox's are in the room they discover video tapes of snuff films and discover that their room is where all of the violence has taken place and after finding the video camera's they realize that they have to try and survive the night or become the next victims of a new snuff film.

It is easier for me to talk about the cliché's first. The first one is that the couple are fighting and will be getting a divorce and apparently it is due to the death of their child and one blame's oneself and the other just wants to move on. Another cliché is the whole scene with the borderline old inept cop that you know will die the minute the hood to the engine of the squad car comes down. There are more of your basic scare technique cliché's but these examples will do for now. They didn't hurt the film to bad but other parts of the film were better than these scenes and they should have thought of something better.

Like I said the intensity was outstanding during the length of the movie. Almost from the beginning I got nervous and found myself holding onto the arm rests of the chair quite vigorously. Director Nimrod Antal did a great job of setting the mood for the story not by offering cheap scares in the beginning but by having the couple argue in the car at the beginning of the movie. It created an uneasy feeling watching how awkward the couple were while in the car. Once in the hotel room the pressure that the Fox's were under in the film translated very well to me as I was sitting in the audience. Even the opening credits were so disorganized or had the appearance of it that it was just unsettling from beginning to end and was very stressful.

Which brings me to the other part of the film that bothered me which reminds me of the other film, after almost two hours of stress and wondering how they are going to get out of it, it all ends in a matter of five minutes. It wasn't a quick silly ending, but it was very intense and you didn't know if the bad guys were truly dead and the ending music was just as unnerving as the opening credits music. So you get to the final scene and then, bang, it's over. For me, I would like to have so kind of stimulation letting me know that the film is over. Either the pictures on the screen or the music should tell me that. But it didn't, so as I was getting ready for the next scene to tell me what happens, it rolls credits. Those kind of ending's bother me and for me, it takes away from the movie.

If you like suspenseful, stressful movies, then Vacancy is the one to go see. Of the three horror, suspense movies I have seen this year, this one is by far the best. Considering the competition that sounds like I am not saying much, but it is a very descent movie and worth a peek at the cinema before the summer begins.

Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers (1988)

Ho-Hum sequel to the first two but much better than the third.

[6/10 · 25 October 2005]

I know people who watch horror movies because of the characters involved. The audience roots for Jason, Freddy, Leatherface, and for some reason even Chucky. People will watch those endless streams of sequels because they like the bad guy. For me it is the Halloween franchise and I will watch of the movies no matter how bad they may be. This particular movie is not as bad as the next one, a little more entertaining than the 2nd movie, but no where near as good as the original.

In this installment, Michael Myers some how survived the fiery blast in the hospital at the end of Halloween 2. He was in a coma at the maximum security hospital for 11 years and is getting transferred to a minimum security hospital, again, on the day before Halloween, again, and of course in middle of his transfer, he kills all of the ambulance drivers, brutally, and heads back to Haddonfield. Meanwhile, his sister Laurie Strode, was killed in a car accident, but still had time to have a daughter, Jamie, played by Danielle Harris (The Last Boy Scout) who had since been adopted by another family and now has a sister named Rachel, played by Ellie Cornell (House of the Dead,) who is upset that she has to baby sit her sister during Halloween while everyone is out partying. As Michael Myers heads towards town, Dr. Loomis, played once again by Donald Pleasance (You Only Live Twice,) is hot on his heels trying to warn everyone that Myers is on his way.

The movie is very clichéd by this point, mostly because by the time this installment of Halloween had been released in 1988 and the last installment of 1981, there had been six Friday the 13th's, four Nightmare on Elm Streets, and one Child's Play. Because of this, there are not a whole of original scares. One of my dislikes in this movie is that, in the first Halloween, you could knock him down, but he would get right back up and come for some more, in the second one I don't think anything happened to him until the end, by this time he was not only getting shot, but hit with rifles in the face, and getting run over by a truck. He went from being a vulnerable but unstoppable psycho to Jason Vorhees, you could nuke him and he would still come after you. Ho-Hum.

The movie also borrowed a lot from the original movie in the death scenes, lots of running objects through people. The final scene with Jamie turning on her step-mother and wearing the clown mask that Michael had when he killed his sister, was very predictable, and some what entertaining.

I did like both actresses, the young and the old, in the movie. Ellie did a very Jamie Lee Curtis like job as being the vulnerable yet tough girl who is trying to keep Michael away from her sister. Danielle did a good job as the screaming without being annoying victim. For example of annoying see the young girl in the movie Aliens. Donald Pleasance was also entertaining again as the Doctor, however, he was starting to show his age by this point and should have called it a career by the end of this movie. Surprisingly he survived for two more bad Halloween sequels and about another 10 movies, but he still did them, but he was done.

As always my biggest problem with the movie was the actor who was Michael Myers i.e. The Shape. He was not as menacing as the first movie and this time the mask was not as intimidating as the original mask. The difference between the two would be that in the first movie, the mask was of something else, and now, the mask is an actual Michael Myers mask trying to be the original mask. Not the same. Oh and lets not forget that at the end of the 2nd movie, Laurie had shot both of his eyes out, yet he can see, so in order for this movie to be at all enjoyable you have to forget that fact.

Anyway, this movie is very OK. If you can't get the original than I would rent this instead of the 2nd movie because it is more enjoyable than that one. I will say that I probably like it better than I should but I have already told you why.

**To see more reviews like this go to www.bbmc.dockratent.com**

Proof (2005)

Great movie, Paltrow Shines.

[8/10 · 20 October 2005]

I have never been a big fan of Gwyneth Paltrow because as an actress I have always thought she was over-rated. I felt that she did an average job in every movie she was in. I did not think she was worthy of the Academy Award she received for her role in the movie Shakespeare in Love. However, after watching Proof, I certainly hope that she gets another nomination for an Academy Award because she deserves it for doing a fantastic job of portraying an unstable woman.

Proof is about Catherine, played by Gwyneth Paltrow (Sylvia,) who has taken care of her father until he dies of heart failure. Her father, Robert, played by Sir Anthony Hopkins (Alexander,) was a mathematician who created many mathematical proofs before he was 22 years old, but started to lose his mind at the age of 27. Catherine is concerned that she not only inherited her father's genius for math, but that she has inherited his madness and is uncertain of her future as she buries her father on her 27 birthday.

This movie was incredible from beginning to end. Every one acted well, especially Paltrow. From the opening scene, Paltrow portrayed a troubled woman. Her movements, expressions, and speech, were all magnificently delivered by Paltrow and at no time did you know for sure if she was beginning to go insane or if it was her own paranoia creating her self doubt.

Actress Hope Davis (American Splendor) did a great job as Claire, Catherine's no non-sense sister who believes that her younger sister has inherited her father's sickness. She was perfect in her role in that every time Catherine was fighting the belief that she was sick, Claire was right there enforcing the belief that she was sick. It was clear also that Claire was offering to "help" Catherine more for Claire sake than Catherine's. She had a life to her own and did not want to have to come back out to Chicago, where Catherine and her father lived, every time her little sister had an episode. Davis did a wonderful job.

Both of the male actors in the movie, Hopkins, and Jake Gyllenhaal (The Day After Tomorrow,) did a fine job acting. Hopkins did his standard impressive performance as a man who goes insane. As I said Gyllenhaal did a fine job, but I felt that any decent actor could have done his part. I will say that his character was written the weakest of the four and yet he still pulled it off quite well.

The movie was based on a Pulitzer Prize winning play by David Auburn, who also co-wrote the screenplay with Rebecca Miller, and is amazing. The story is engaging from beginning to end and I love how they introduce the character of Robert in the beginning of the movie, talking to Catherine, as if he is alive, and then he answers one of Catherine's questions by telling her he has been dead for a week. There are many scenes between father and daughter that are powerful. My favorite scene is when Catherine has come home from Northwestern University because she has not been able to get a hold of Robert she discovers that he is outside in the snow, working on math.

One scene I did not like is during the party after the funeral, Hal (Gyllenhaal) ended up having sex with Catherine, earning her trust and essentially the lynch pin of the movie and I don't know if I buy if that would happen. Catherine had been so emotional with the death of her father, especially at the services, I don't know if she would succumb to her passion. However, that is the only glitch on a brilliant movie.

Director John Madden, who also directed Paltrow in Shakespeare in Love, did a great job with her in the movie. She kept her intensity in the movie and I am sure Madden had something to do with it. I also love the way he shot my favorite scene in the movie. It was dark and the lights was in the background so you could not see their expressions, but the silhouette of the their faces was wonderful. I also liked how Madden was able to keep the movie from getting confusing with all of the flashback scenes explaining what had happen to the characters.

This is a great movie and I recommend every one to watch it. This movie could be the sleeper at the big dance come February so if you can get to the theaters, skip all of the garbage that is coming out and watch Paltrow kick some butt and hopefully earn another nomination, this time she has earned it. **This review and others can be read at www.bbmc.dockratent.com**

Wrong Turn (I) (2003)

Completely Original, except that it is a rip off of Texas Chainsaw Massacre

[1/10 · 20 October 2005]

You know, I love the story about how a group of teenagers are hunted by a family of psychopath's hell bent on killing each one of them. As each kid continues to buy it the tension builds and you don't know what's going to happen until the climatic ending. Boy the Texas Chainsaw Massacre was an entertaining movie, but if you want to see a cheap, poorly made, imitation that sucks as much as the female actress breasts bounce in their t-shirts, then by all means, get this movie, because it blows.

So this young stud, Chris, played by Desmond Harrington (We Were Soldiers,) is late for a meeting and there is a huge accident on the highway, so he back tracks and goes down this dirt road in bum-f*cked West Virginia where he runs into, literally, a van full of young adults, led by the unexplainable single Jessie, played by Eliza Dushku (True Lies,) looking for sex and fun. So when they discover that the road was booby trapped by someone, four of the six, go looking for help, while the remaining red shirts, I am sorry, I mean teenagers, stay with the cars to both die violently. So then the remaining four discover that they are being hunted by crazed killer and run around trying to escape and end up all dying except the main two characters.

This movie is a complete rip-off of TCM. The amazing thing is that this movie came out in the same year that the remake of TCM was released. Movie monster and make-up genius Stan Winston produced this movie and for the life of me I don't know why. There is nothing original about this movie, the mountain men are poor excuses for 'monsters,' the actors, with the exception of Dushku, were bottom of the barrel, obviously collecting a paycheck and getting experience.

I have a warm spot for Eliza, she was in one of my favorite TV shows, Buffy The Vampire Slayer, plus she was in a movie with Arnold (that's Schwarzenegger) and she does have some skill. But this was just the wrong movie for her to be in, plus lets face it, she has a beautiful face and a hot body with some athletic skill and that is why she was cast in this movie. Hopefully she will get something better in the future.

Director Rob Schmidt was completely over his head in the direction. The lighting was often off and he over-used every scare tactic that was beaten to death by the endless supply of Friday the 13th movies. Since he has done nothing since, lets hope he is a car salesman in Minot, North Dakota.

Nothing much more to say, avoid this movie at all costs. I have watched Disney movies that were more thrilling and Jane Austin movies with more suspense. The DVD is even boring and the commentary is so bad, it seemed that the actors and director were bored also. Note to DVD makers, when doing commentary for movies, don't have large gaps of silence in the commentary, it makes bad movies even worse when you can't here it. To punish myself for renting this, I am going to get circumcised by a blind doctor who is shell shocked while playing the 1812 overture in his ear. **This review and others can be read at www.bbmc.dockratent.com**

A History of Violence (2005)

It's not bad.

[6/10 · 1 October 2005]

***Contains Spoilers*** Sometimes movies can have a hot actress who gets naked, a good actor who is quite studly, and a bad guy who is cool in that mean sort of way, and still be crappy because of bad writing and/or story. This movie fits this description to a T.

Viggo Mortensen (Lord of the Rings Trilogy) stars as every bodies All-American next door neighbor Tom Stall, who has a beautiful wife Edie, played by Maria Bello (Assault on Precinct 13,) and two great kids. He runs the neighborhood diner and everything is great until two hoodlums show up and try to kill Tom and the rest of the staff. However, with some quick thinking and brutal violence, Tom kills both of the men. Tom becomes a national hero with his name in the paper and face on TV, which happens to bring 3 men from Philadelphia, one of which is Carl Fogarty, played by Ed Harris (Apollo 13,) who claim to know Tom by another name, Joey, and what to take him back to Philadelphia, to settle some unfinished business.

The cast was very strong. I enjoyed Viggo's portrayal of the anti-hero that his character became. He also did a good job in the beginning of the movie showing glimpses of Joey, while being Tom, and at the end of the movie when the rolls were reversed. Maria Bello was also quite nice as the small town wife who was an angel during the day and a sex puppet at night. She has created one of the top ten sexiest scenes in movie history by coming out of the bathroom in a cheerleader outfit, portraying a "sweet, innocent" girl who is very naughty as she rubs her skirt and revealing her very white, pure panties. Very Sexy! She also did a nice job acting, a role that reminded me of her performance in the movie Payback.

Ed Harris was quite intriguing as the mob boss Carl Fogarty. His performance was just menacing enough to provide some real thrilling moments, particularly the scene at the mall that could have been over the top but Harris kept it right on. Giving his character a physical deformity was a nice touch that was one of the few decisions the writer or director made.

Earlier, I mentioned how Maria Bello's performance was similar to the one in Payback, which also starred Mel Gibson. The entire movie actually reminded me of the same movie, mostly because of the good guy image each leading actor had, and turning it around to play the bad guy. However, the stark difference between the two movies is that in Payback there was a rise in tension from beginning until the climatic final scene. In A History of Violence, the tension is jump started in the beginning scene when we are introduced to the two hoodlums, then we are allowed a reprieve while we get to no the Tom Stall character, and the tension is re-introduced with reappearance of the hoodlums. However, from this point on the tension never rises or falls, which is both good and bad. Screenwriter Josh Olson adapted the story from the graphic novel written by Josh Wagner and Vince Locke. The story is the week point and I don't know who to blame. My biggest problem is that, to me, there was no climatic scene. At no point did I feel the tension rise as Tom/Joey confronted his nemesis. The tension was steady, which was nice because there were scenes that involved Tom's son in a fight at school that really had nothing to do with the main story. But when Tom/Joey final confronts the men, instead of a long shootout or some decent action, it was a quick, bang, bang, bang, bad guys dead. Which is probably what would happens in real life, at least the quickness of the fight, but totally not exhilarating nor something I want to see at the movies, If I want reality, I will watch the news. I wanted to be on the edge of my seat and I wasn't.

The there is the ending. After Tom confronts the bad guy and tells Edie who he really is, he gets a call from his brother and is forced to go back to Philadelphia and confront him. His brother, Richie, played horribly by William Hurt (The Village,) is a mobster who was screwed over by his younger brother when Joey was still with the mob, I think. It is never really explained. Anyway, the tension is still maintained because I was expecting a huge shoot out or something, of course this was before I new who was his brother. Once Hurt stumbled onto the screen, you could have phoned the movie in. More bang, bang, bang, bad guys dead.

I will say that the final scene redeemed itself if I read into the expression Maria Bello gave him when he came back from this rampage. If, the look meant the opposite of what they talked about in the first part of the movie, then it was a perfect ending, if it meant the same, then I am even more upset. It is hard to talk about without completely giving it away, which I have already done so much I don't want to do anymore.

I also have to say the sex scene in the hallway doesn't make sense to me and if someone will explain it to me I will appreciate it.

Overall, I like this movie, but for the actors and not for the story. It will find its way into my video collection but probably at a discounted price, if for nothing else to have a Maria Bello full frontal nudity shot in the collection. ***This review and others can be read at www.bbmc.dockratent.com***

Into the Blue (2005)

The definition of Bad Movie!

[1/10 · 1 October 2005]

It's been a while since I have done a short review just because I feel I would be cheating the reader. But sometimes movies suck so bad and are so predictable that giving the movie a thoughtful review is not fair to me because the people who created the movie didn't think about you so why should I give them the same consideration. So, I will say that the only reason to see this movie is Jessica Alba and her body.

So Paul Walker(Fast and the Furious) does a bad job portraying Jared, a loser who pretty much has nothing to live for except a sinking boat and a delusional, yet very hot girlfriend named Sam, played by Jessica Alba (Fantastic Four.) Both of them along with two incredibly stupid friends go treasure hunting, since they are in the Bahamas, that's what people do, and may have found a 200 year old sunken ship. Oh, and a airplane that crashed in the water with enough Cocaine to fill Robert Downy Jr.'s prescription for life. So the four have to fight the drug smugglers, other treasure hunters, and corrupt policemen, who all work for each other by the way, to try and get this sunken ship. Wee! Yes, well, this movie sucks. Speaking of sucking, let's talk about Paul Walker for a second. I have seen things floating in a toilet bowl that act better than him. I was so tired of seeing close-ups of his incredibly cut body that I was violently ill, and that was after the first five minutes.

The only redeeming thing about this movie is that for at least three quarters of the movie, Jessica Alba is in a bikini, and there are some shots of her underwater that make me think that the only way you can see more of her skin is if she does a nude scene in a movie, or you are dating her. The director must have known that she was his only commodity and he used it well.

The script is so ridiculous and unbelievable that I just can't talk about it in a positive way so I won't talk about it at all. Safe to say that I can't imagine writer Matt Johnson doing another movie ever again. By the way, this is the same ass that wrote the incredibly horrible movie Torque. That should tell you how bad this movie is and how unbelievable the story became.

To sum up, movie sucks, Paul Walker sucks, and Jessica Alba continues to be ultra hot. This movie will be in my collection, once it hits a pawn shop and I can get it for $4, and I will just fast forward to the scenes with Alba swimming in the ocean. However, if you don't find her attractive, I suggest you go get circumcised because that will make your life just as rewarding as watching this movie. ***This review and others can be seen at www.bbmc.dockratent.com**

The Brothers Grimm (2005)

Not as bad as every says.

[7/10 · 28 August 2005]

It is unfortunate that this movie is being overshadowed in the media that the Weinstein Brothers are releasing all of their movies that they did recently with Miramax before they leave the company in September '05. That gives a connotation that the movies aren't very good and in the case of The Brothers Grimm, that isn't true. While the character development and story had issues, the movie is still entertaining and the production design more than makes up for these issues.

Will and Jacob Grimm, played by Matt Damon (The Bourne Supremacy) and Heath Ledger (Lords of Dogtown,) are two con-artists who take advantage of local folk legends to scare people into believing the supernatural and hire them to 'exorcise' the demons. The brothers are then captured by the French and are forced to go to a village in French occupied Germany, this story takes place during the Napoleon Wars, and help them find the con-artists who are stealing the little girls of the village in the nearby forest. Once the brothers get there and start to investigate, they realize that there is something more going on then a couple of hoaxers and have to put their minds together to save the children.

Both Damon and Ledger do a good job with these characters even though their accents are terrible. To me it sounded like they were from England which makes me ask; why would the French allow these two to roam the country side when they are at war with England? If that is the case then the story doesn't make a lot of since. But assuming that it was just a bad dialect coach, both men were able to provide some stability in characters that were written all over the place.

The best thing about the movie is the production design, costume design, and director Terry Gilliam's (Dir. Fisher King) imagination. The set is a pure period piece set in the early 1800's Europe. The town is dirty, disgusting and the wall around offers almost no sense of security at the forbidden forest just outside of it. The minute the movie enters the village, the felling of gloom is projected wonderfully. Hats off to Guy Dyas for doing a great job turning Gilliam's imagination into reality.

The key to the success of the design is Gilliam. He has such a wonderful imagination that has been shown in his previous movies such as Time Bandits and Twelve Monkeys. He was perfect to direct this movie. This movie is pure fantasy and that is why he is right to direct.

I also want to compliment Costume Designer Gabriella Pescucci. She has a gift when it comes to costuming Gilliam's vision as well as this period in European history. She won an Academy Award for Costume Design for the movie The Age of Innocence and was nominated for the same award for Gilliam's movie, The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. I know most people don't stay for the end credits, but if ever see a period piece done well, I would bet money her name is in the credits.

Ehren Kruger wrote this story and it is the weakest link of the movie. While nothing stands out as being horrible, the character development for the leads is weak. In the first minutes of the movie we are introduced to the young brothers, as they help their mother care for their sick sister. Jacob had run into town to get the doctor with the last of the money they had. Instead he came back with a bunch of magic beans, obviously being conned by someone. The term magic beans comes up time and time again as a crutch for Jacob. But I don't think he finished the story in terms of symbolism of the beans. Will was forced to believe in the concept in order to save the missing girls but at no time was Jacob's belief ever really tested. That was a flaw in their characters. Also the story dragged at the beginning and the end so it could have been tighter. I don't know why a writer known for his horror movie scripts, Scream 3, The Ring, and The Ring 2, was chosen to do this script. I think he lacked the imagination that the story required and only Gilliam's direction kept the movie in 'fairy tale' land where it needed to be. To be honest, this is an excellent story for Gilliam to write, but I can just assume that the script would not have been as well received in Hollywood as it was by the man who adapted The Ring. The last thing that needs to be said is that sometimes movies are affected by things the audience doesn't see and the director and actors have no control over. Much like Gilliam's lost Quixote movie, Grimm was plagued with problems. The movie was originally produced under the MGM label until it pulled its funding. The Weinstein Brothers at Miramax took over the project and made some changes with the movie that did not sit well with the Gilliam. They fired the original cinematographer Nicola Pecorini, who had worked with Gilliam before. Then the Weinstein brothers vetoed who Gilliam wanted as the lead actress. These things may seem trivial in nature but they do create problems between producers and directors that can affect a film. It is something to think about when watching bad movies, it may not be the fault of the talent on the film, but it could be because of money. I think you are making a mistake if you miss this film. It has a great since of imagination and is well acted and directed. It will make my DVD collection when it comes out. *this review and others can be read at www.bbmc.dockratent.com*

Gunner Palace (2004)

A documentary that is poor, that is not made by Michael Moore.

[4/10 · 30 June 2005]

Wow. A documentary not made by Michael Moor that still sucks. In this case the movie sucks because the direction is horrible, actually there is almost no direction. I like the content, but this is more of a home video then a documentary.

Gunner Palace is about a unit of soldiers living in one of Saddam Hussein's palaces during the war in Iraq. The movie shows day to day life while soldiers explain what is going on, sometimes in rap song, and sometimes in humor, and the dangers they face.

The interesting aspect of this movie is how it shows the soldiers feeling neglected now that the press is reporting the day to day activities like it did during the combat during the "war." Many of them feel that the public doesn't understand that they are still fighting and dieing every day. I also enjoyed how the film mixes the good and the bad the soldiers' experience. One block the kids are coming up to the soldiers to walk with them but the next block over, kids are throwing rocks at them. I do like how the movie shows what good things that are taking place over there, like visiting orphanage's and helping people in the street. I didn't like the continuous mocking of the President and Secretary Rumsfeld all though it's to be expected because this movie did have a anti-war feeling to it. Yet the content was still good.

What was horrible was the total lack or direction in the movie and the editing of the movie. I was constantly turning up the volume on my TV to hear what the man behind the camera was saying, yet had to turn it down when the Rap music came on. I then had to turn it up when he was interviewing the soldiers but turn it down when the fighting began. Poor sound editing. I also really couldn't follow what was going on. At one point, about a hour into the movie, the cameraman says he is going home, and we do indeed see pictures of him at his house. When then hear how one of the soldiers he visited was killed, and the next scene, without explanation we are back in Iraq. Did he go back after he heard the death of his friend, or did he just provide more pictures of stuff he took? Later on it becomes semi-clear that he goes back, but he never really says it. It could be his cameraman for all we know.

There is a wonderful interview with a kid over in Iraq who talks about his hometown, of Colorado Springs, and how when he left to join the Army, there was construction at the I-25 and Woodmen intersection. He then tells how since then, he lived in Germany for a year, got called to invade Iraq, and toppled a country, helped build it back up, and after all of that, he goes to the internet to look at the Colorado Springs newspaper to see a headline that said Woodmen Intersection making some progress. For those of use, like me, who lived in Colorado Springs during that time, could really appreciate that comment. I laughed out loud at that comment.

This could have been a wonderful movie, but because of the lack of direction the movie falls into confusion on more than one occasion. Interesting material, but poor story telling by the director.

**This review and others can be read at www.bbmc.dockratent.com**

War of the Worlds (2005)

Great movie that no one will like.

[8/10 · 30 June 2005]

This is a very good movie that nobody will like and probably be a bust at the box office, and it's a shame because Spielberg did a nice job recreating H.G Wells classic story. This movie should stand on its on feet and unfortunately has been out shined by the ass that Tom Cruise has become off camera. Maybe he should worry more about his on screen performance then his off screen tirades about Scientology or Katie Holmes.

The movie is based on the H.G. Wells story about how aliens come to the planet and kick some major butt, but in the end, they die because of something that on our planet that we humans have grown used too.

The main reason why people won't like this movie is because we get our butts kicked in the movie. Unlike Independence Day, the aliens do come down and destroy and kill us, but, this time we can do nothing to stop them, i.e. we are helpless. Not a fun movie for the movie crowd on a patriotic weekend such as July 4th. Since we humans win by default, there was not a lot of cheering in the theater when I watched. Spielberg continues to be a great story teller and one of the best directors ever. No scene was too long, he was able to control the over-acting impulses that Cruise can have, and he brings out the talents of the adorably wonderful young actress Dakota Fanning (Man on Fire) who plays Cruise's daughter Rachel Ferrier. I just hope that she is going to school because she is appearing in every movie that requires a young girl to act. Hey, casting directors, let her go to school will ya? Tom Cruise (Minority Report), as Ray Ferrier, does a steady but not spectacular job as the deadbeat dad trying to deal with what is going on. I did find that his reactions to events around him are probably closer to reality then the courageous hero's we normally find in these kind of movie. To give an indication of how dark this movie is, the final act begins by having Cruise's character kill another man who has lost his mind after watching the aliens use humans as fertilizer. There is no happy ending in the movie, and yes the children and Tom survive, but there are no rah-rah scenes here, so don't go expecting it.

I tell you all to go see it, but like I said, I don't think people will like it and it will be a disappointment at the box office, the blame of which can be put on the story itself, because it is so good, and so depressing all at once. Give it a shot.

**This review and others can be read at www.bbmc.dockratent.com**

Bewitched (2005)

Is it Bewitched or Be-terrible?

[1/10 · 26 June 2005]

In future film classes when a student asks, "How do you not make a movie?" the professor will quickly grab the DVD movie of Bewitched and show the class how a horrible movie is made. Will Farrell couldn't even save this movie that was so poor you watch it and think that this movie was done by high school kids, but actually it was written and directed by Nora Ephron of You've Got Mail and Sleepy in Seattle. What was she doing? This is easily the worst movie of the year.

So the movie is about TV producers who are re-starting the Bewitched TV series and cast a has been movie actor Jack Wyatt, played by Will Ferrell (Kicking & Screaming) and an unknown woman Isabelle Bigelow, played by Nicole Kidman (The Interpreter,) to play Samantha. Of course, Isabelle is an actual witch and she falls for Jack who doesn't know and then she finds out that she was lied too by Jack and she gets mad casts a spell and then rewinds it and ………..CRAP!!!!! The story and the writing there in was terrible. The plot didn't go anywhere. We were thrown into a situation that was unbelievable, the premise that a witch is trying to find true love, and it never developed. There were sub-plots that were barely started and never finished or finished poorly. I can't believe Nora Ephron wrote this steamer. There was two minutes where I laughed, a little, where Samantha had put a spell on Darren and Will Farrell was allowed to improvise and come up with funny ways to say he wants his dog. Unfortunately, if you have seen the previews then you have seen parts of it and so it wasn't as good as it could have been. That's it though, the rest sucked a**.

This is the second movie that Nicole Kidman was miss-cast in this summer. Does she need Tom Cruise to tell her what a good movie is and what is a bad movie? First, The Interpreter, then this one, and oh by the way, she was in Mr. and Mrs. Smith before she dropped out. However, since I have mentioned a Drama, Comedy, and an Action picture and she doesn't fit in any of them, where does she go? I love Will Farrell, but he could do nothing with this script and therefore sucked. Since I like him as an actor, I will leave it at that.

If there is Hollywood justice, this will be the last 60's TV movie remake we will see. This movie experience could not have been more painful if I was getting a root canal, having my toenails ripped out, and have alcohol rubbed into my eyes while a cat uses my p***s as a scratching post. Avoid this movie at all costs, one of the worst ones made in five years at least. **This review and others can be seen at www.bbmc.dockratent.com

The Ice Pirates (1984)

How can you not like this movie?

[7/10 · 30 May 2005]

During the mid 80's and 1990, produces used what was developed from the Star Wars movies to create fun, simple, action/fantasy movies. "Ice Pirates" is one of these movies that has simple special effects but is story and character driven "Ice Pirates" takes place in a time when all of the galaxies water supplies have dried up except for one planet. Jason, a pirate, played by Robert Ulrich (Magnum Force,) captures a princess while trying to high jack a cargo ship full of ice. The pirates get captured but Jason and his first mate are set free by Princess Karina, played by Mary Crosby, who hires them to take them to the Pirate planet so she can find her father. Her father is missing since he went on a mission to find the fabled seventh planet of water that wasn't destroyed in the galactic wars. Jason and the rest of his crew help Karina find her father and find the fabled seventh planet.

The story is entertaining if somewhat unoriginal. Since the seventh planet is Earth, the story is similar to that of "Battlestar Galactica" and the like. But it is still a well written story that keeps you watching from beginning to end. Writers Stewart Raffill (Writer-Passenger 57) and Stanford Sherman (writer-Krull) were able to add humor into the story without it seeming to be out of place. The space herpes was quite entertaining.

The actors were well known for the 1980's. Ulrich, who passed away in April 2002 of cancer, had his own TV show in the 1980's, Spencer: For Hire, Mary Crosby is the daughter of film legend Bing Crosby. Also making appearances are Ron Pearlman (Hellboy,) Anjelica Houston (Life Aquatic,) Hollywood Square regular Bruce Vilanch, Michael Roberts (Hostage,) and the late John Matuszak. All of the actors fit their part well and were fun to watch. Unfortunately we lost two actors from this film to cancer and the rest, with the exception of Pearlman and Houston, are nothing more than bit players on TV shows or movies.

The action in the movie is very tame, especially for the 1980's body count action movies of Stallone and Schwarzenegger. The robots in the movie are fun and the stunts are entertaining. However, most of the space action uses stop action photography and filmed in front of a blue screen, ala Star Wars, without the Star Wars budget. But it shouldn't distract you from enjoying the film.

This is a classic 80's science fiction adventure movie that is not named Star Wars or Star Trek. It is along the same lines as "The Last Starfighter," "Enemy Mine" and "Dreamscape." If you are looking for an entertaining movie that has none of the bulls**t political messages that had taken over these kinds of movies in the 1990's, and if you can find it, I highly recommend you renting it. **This review and others can be read at www.bbmc.dockratent.com**

Downfall (2004)

One of the best performances ever!

[10/10 · 11 May 2005]

I absolutely love this movie. The audience is thrown into the final days of the war in Europe and is forced to accept a person who history has declared a monster and must realize that he was a human with all of those emotions. The writing, directing, and the acting especially by Bruno Ganz were incredible. Adolf Hitler was a human who not only made the appalling decisions that wiped out millions of people, but he also was a man who cared enough about his secretary to make sure she was out of Berlin to avoid Communist rule with the Soviets. In my opinion, "Downfall" is a must see movie for everyone and one of the best movies of all time as well as probably the best acting performance of all time.

The story is about the final days of Adolf Hitler in his bunker as the Soviet Army is encircling what is left of the city of Berlin. It is shown through the eyes of one of Hitler's personal secretaries, Traudl Junge, played by Alexandra Maria Lara (TV-Doctor Zhivago,) who is completely loyal to Hitler. Junge is staying loyal even though Hitler's closet allies are abandoning him. Hitler, played masterfully by Bruno Ganz (The Manchurian Candidate,) is almost bi-polar in the final days. One moment, he is the historical monster the audience as grown to know as we watch he tell his generals that there are large German armies outside of Berlin who are going to rescue him, then screaming at them when they don't. Then you see a Hitler that is concerned about his friends and the people who have worked for him, telling people to leave Berlin because the war is lost. I am not aware of another movie that has shown that kind of a Hitler. After Hitler commits suicide, the rest of the story focuses on Joseph Goebbels short command of Germany, the murder or his own children, his death, and Junge's escape out of Berlin. Quite possibly the greatest performance by an actor, Bruno Ganz delivers us an Adolf Hitler that society is not ready to embrace. Ganz acting decisions to show us a human Hitler with emotions of kindness, compassion, and love, is completely different than the Hitler history has showed us. There are two scenes that show the greatness of his performance. The first scene is when Hitler is being told by the his architect, Albert Speer, that he had not obeyed Hitler's orders for quite sometime even though his personal loyalty never wavered. Hitler was furious but all he did was break his pencil, refused to shake his hand, and shed a tear. To show a monster with emotions is a powerful statement, especially the emotion of sadness, not just betrayal. Another scene that was powerful to me was when Junge walked into Hitler's room and he was sitting there with very little light looking at a painting of Otto Von Bismarck. The scene was almost spiritual in that he was sitting there and looking for answers in a calm and still fashion. It is Impossible to imagine the Hitler in history books that was this peaceful, but that is exactly how he was portrayed, at peace. Ganz makes many risks on this character and succeeds on ever one. Not since George C. Scott's portrayal of Patton have I seen an actor become the character he was portraying, Bruno Ganz was Adolf Hitler.

Director Oliver Hirschbiegel did not make a wrong choice. While inside the bunker, you felt Closter phobic and never safe from the artillery shells bouncing of the ground, outside you weren't safe and you knew that the longer you stayed outside, the sooner you would become causality. His action scenes were intense, say a step below Saving Private Ryan. Two great scenes that he shot involved the young children defending the city. At the beginning of the film the children were receiving medals from Hitler for their bravery. When the kids were manning an AA gun, a parent came up and told them to leave because they would die, and they would have none of it. They were prepared to die for Hitler. Towards the end of the movie when the defenses were failing one of he children, a young girl, asked another older kid to kill her, and he did. He then turned the gun on himself. This scene was done without words and was again very intense and outstanding. I could go on and on and get into some of the political philosophies of this movie and what they mean but I wont. This is an amazing movie and IF you can handle the fact that by the end of the movie, you may question your beliefs of what Hitler was, a man not a monster, then you should watch this movie, if you can't then stay away. Because this movie gives a convincing argument that not all evil men are heartless monsters, but human beings with a belief that what they are doing is right. *This review and others can be seen at www.bbmc.dockratent.com*

Kingdom of Heaven (2005)

Too long, but really good, if you like history

[7/10 · 7 May 2005]

I enjoyed this movie because of the attention to detail that the writer William Monahan and Director Ridley Scott brought to this movie. However, this attention to detail at times slowed the movie down to a painful crawl and it seemed like a 3 hour long movie even though its only 2 hours long. However, since it's an epic it is a worthy effort by Mr. Scott and his cast did a workman like job in delivering the story.

This movie deals with the fall of Jerusalem to the Muslim army of Saladin around 1188 A.D. The movie starts in France where a blacksmith named Balian, played by Orlando Bloom (Pirates of the Caribbean) was morning the death of his wife who committed suicide. Because she committed suicide the local priest reminds Balian that she won't go to heaven. Baron Godfrey, played by Liam Neeson (Phantom Menace,) meets Balian and tells him that is his dad and offers to take him to Jerusalem to be groomed to be his replacement. Balian declines the offer, but when he kills the priest of his village for remarks about his dead wife, Balian joins Godfrey. However, Balian is hunted down by the villagers and he along with Godfrey and some of his men are forced to fight to defend Balian. During the fight Godfrey is mortally wounded and dies before getting Balain to Jerusalem. Before he dies Godfrey Knights Balian and he is now the owner of the Godfrey's land east of Jerusalem. Jumping to the climatic scene, Balian is left to defend Jerusalem after the Army led by Guy is wiped out by the Muslim army in the desert.

The acting was OK, nobody stood out yet nobody did a bad job. The one character I enjoyed the most was Tiberius, played by Jeremy Irons (Being Julia.) His character was by far the toughest of the good guys and he was smart, albeit a little bit of a coward in the end. I am not quite sure if I can ever accept Orlando Bloom as an action hero. He was perfect for the Lord of the Rings movie as well as Pirates, yet in those he had a strong ensemble cast. I just don't know if he is the kind of actor that can carry an action movie.

I liked what Ridley Scott did with the movie. However, it was too long at times. The opening act where we get Balian to Jerusalem was way to long. I liked that he showed how dangerous the travel was across the Mediterranean but adding everything together in the first act, just too long. His battle scenes were not original or creative, but not every movie has to bring something new to the genre. So what if the scenes were copies of Lord of the Rings, until that movie we hadn't seen anything on such a grand scale, let's enjoy it a little while. Writer William Moynahan did a great job of adding detail to the script, some of it being based on factual information, I am amazed that this is his first writing effort on the big screen.

The one thing that made me really upset was the music. Epic movies need their own original music, but to borrow music from other movies takes away from the movie. On my own I heard music from the movie The 13th Warrior, by Jerry Goldsmith, and I heard somebody say that he heard music from the Gladiator in this. If you are going to spend money to make an epic, spend money on making the music right too.

While you might need to bring a pillow to watch the movie, I still say it is worth watching in a movie theatre. The attention to detail that was brought to the movie, complimented by the acting makes for an enjoyable movie.

Airplane II: The Sequel (1982)

Not even close to the classic

[3/10 · 5 May 2005]

The sequel to the groundbreaking hilariously funny Airplane is neither groundbreaking nor hilarious. Most of the time it's slightly amusing. Most of the time the sequel rides the wave that the first movie created and the writer/director of this movie did nothing to help it, only hurt it.

This time the ridiculously silly movie starts off like the last Airplane movie except that this time it's the first commercial shuttle flight to the first colony on the moon. Ted Stryker, played by Robert Hays (Dr. T and the women,) was the test pilot to test the shuttle and after the prototype crashed he was sent to the insane asylum. Meanwhile, the shuttle goes forward with its mission. Stryker escapes and tries to get on the shuttle to stop it. Of course he does, and he tries to stop the mission and get back together with his girlfriend Elaine, played by Julie Hagerty (What about Bob?) OK the first movie was written and directed by Jim Abrams and the Zucker Brothers, David and Jerry. Airplane II was written and directed by Ken Finkleman. I mention this because Finkleman appears to have nothing to do with the first movie, and with very few exceptions he steals every joke from the first movie, makes a minor change to the joke and then puts it in the new film. Doing it once or twice, say like in Austin Powers, its OK, but if most of your jokes are based on the original jokes from the first movie, then it quickly becomes tiresome and unfunny.

There are a few jokes that are funny, the beginning with the Iran Air Courtesy shuttle is one, and most of the stuff with William Shatner was funny until the very end. There are some bits and pieces in the middle but Finkleman depends too much on the original jokes and end the end it kills him.

The failure of the movie is on Finkleman. Haggerty and Hays and everyone else did a fine job but they weren't shooting another film as much as performing an encore of the previous show. However the one actor who was missing from this movie which was noticeable was Leslie Neilson. He had an uncanny ability and timing for these kinds of movies which made the Naked Gun series so wonderful. His absence hurt the movie.

I say if you have never seen the Airplane movies, get the first one, it's the best. Ignore this one unless it's on TV, but don't see the sequel before you see the first Airplane movie or any of the Naked Guns, it is a poor imitation.

**This review and others can be read at www.bbmc.dockratent.com*

Hitler's Pawn: The Margaret Lambert Story (2004 TV Movie)

Nice, educational documentary.

[6/10 · 30 April 2005]

A documentary about a Jewish athlete who was used by the Nazi propaganda machine to get the world to come to the 1936 Berlin Olympic games, "Hitler's Pawn: The Margaret Lambert Story" is another example of the persecution of the Jewish people and the blind folds the rest of the world had because of the Nazi's. This movie is good but does not have the same bite that other Nazi documentaries show.

Margaret Lambert was a Jewish athlete who excelled in track and field, especially the high jump, who was a German Olympic hopeful in 1931. In 1933, Adolf Hitler came to power and the persecution of the Jews began. Lambert was kicked out of her sports organization and was not allowed to compete at all. By 1935, her father had shipped her to England with the hope of her becoming a member of the England Track and Field team, and to also get her away from the Nazi's.

Hitler and the other Nazi's in the high command were trying to secure the Olympics that had been given to the Weimer Republic in 1931. Under some international scrutiny, the Nazi propaganda machine was forced to show that Jews would be apart of the German team. The Nazi's forced Lambert's father to go to England and bring her back to Germany with the aspiration of becoming a competitor for the German Olympic team. When she came back and without telling her, the Nazi's gave her name to the American press and others, to show that Lambert, a Jew, and other Jewish athletes would be competing on the German team. Because of this and other similar events, the American's decided to go to Berlin and compete in the Olympics. After the American's left for Germany, Lambert and most of the other Jewish Athlete's were told that they were not chosen to participate in the games. One woman was chosen because she was only half Jewish but was a Christian.

The documentary is good in that it shows yet another example of what happened to the Jews under Nazi Germany before the war. Lambert was clearly the best high jumper in Germany, and her personal best jump was the same as the gold medalist's jump at the Berlin Olympics. Lambert was fortunate that these things happened to her in the mid-30's because she left Germany shortly after the Olympics and came to America. After a few years in America she read the newspaper articles about her being on the team and realized what had been done. Her father was sent to a concentration camp a few years later and after 4 months was told to leave Germany or be killed, so he left and came to America.

Obviously this documentary had a happy ending in that she was in America at the time of the war so she did not have to go through the horrors of the death camps. Because of this, the movie does not have the same feeling of despair and sadness that many other documentaries have about this subject. I am sure that Margaret Lambert is quite happy that she did not have to endure what many other people did. It was unfortunate that she was used this way, but if she wasn't, she and some of her family may have been added to the millions who were killed.

As far as documentaries go, this may be a great movie to show to some children who may be able to start to understand what hate and anger can do to people, yet are unable to comprehend what happened at the death camps. This movie will teach another valuable lesson without scarring them to death. That can come later when they are older and they can see what happened at the camps. For adults, this documentary is educational but does not give you that feeling of dread that many other movies do.

*This review and others can be seen at www.bbmc.dockratent.com*

The Pillow Book (1995)

What The ?

[1/10 · 29 April 2005]

I will give someone $20 if they can explain to me what the hell this movie is about and what it is trying to say and what in God's name is Ewan McGregor doing in it. This movie makes no sense. I am sure it has something to do with art, but it beats the hell out of me what.

The movie is about a young Chinese woman named Nagiko, played by Vivian Wu (Joy Luck Club) who has had calligraphy painted on her body since she was a little girl. As she gets older she keeps looking for more calligraphers so she can continue to be painted on and have sex with some of them. She meets Jerome, Ewan McGregor (Star Wars I, II, and III) and she has a thing with him where we get to see his schlong in all of its glory. There is some kind of homo erotic thing with a Japanese editor but don't know why he is there or what his purpose is but hey, whatever.

Um, I guess the writer and director, Peter Greenaway, has some reason for putting this book onto film. If you ask me, it's so that he can have Vivian Wu and Ewan McGregor nude for most of the film. While that sounds like a good idea, its not. There appears to be no other point to this movie, what do nude bodies look like with paint on them and what does it mean? Peter Greenaway has written and directed two of the worst movies ever put on film, The Cook the Thief His Wife & Her Lover, and this movie, all though for different reasons. First, there is no story other than the garbage I have tried to explain. Second, Greenaway edits the film where there is a picture within a picture scene, I guess so he can double the torture that he is giving you. Third, the sound editing is horrible. The beginning of the movie has a Buddhist chant but it is so loud that birds outside my window were collapsing from the pain. Then he goes into the movie and everybody is speaking almost at a whisper. Then he switches scenes and the music is so loud that the human body is forced into the fetal position until the noise stops. I am sure he made his choices for a reason, but to the layman, it doesn't make work.

This is just a horrible movie and I am amazed that people look at it and like it. Greenaway should never be allowed to touch film and he in fact should be a canvas, but the paint should be honey and he should have to lie in the middle of a desert with army ants eating him alive for this movie. Never, ever do a movie like this again. Greenaway should be forced to remove elephant dung from every zoo in the world for the next 20 years.

*This movie review and others can be seen at www.bbmc.dockratent.com*

A Series of Unfortunate Events (2004)

Gloomy, gloomy, gloomy.

[5/10 · 25 April 2005]

This is an incredibly gloomy movie and I for one am not sure it's a children's movie even though when I went during the day, the majority of the audience was children. From the previews I thought this would be a dark comedy. Well I was half right, it was dark but I did not laugh a lot. The movie is based off of famous children's books written by Daniel Handler. I have never read the books so I don't know how close the movie follows the books however, after watching the movie it would appear that the books do not transfer well on to film.

The premise of the story is that three children whose parents are killed in a mysterious fire are turned over to their cousin, an actor, named Count Olaf, played by Jim Carrey (Bruce Almighty.) Olaf does not hide the fact that he is trying to get rid of the children in order to inherit the enormous wealth left over by their parents. After trying to get them killed in a car – train "accident", the kids get transferred to another relative, an Uncle Monty, played by Billy Connolly (The Last Samurai). However his is killed by Count Olaf who is disguised as a scientist. The kids are then turned over to their Aunt, Josephine, played by Meryl Streep (The Manchurian Candidate.) Yes, you guessed she too is also killed by Count Olaf. The climatic scene of the movie is when Olaf discovers that if he marries the oldest of the three children, Violet, played by Emily Browning (Ned Kelly, Darkness Falls,) who is fourteen years old. So he sets up a play in which he will marry Violet while all those around think the wedding is not real. See what I mean, dark, but not very funny.

I would like to give kudos to the director, Brad Siberling, who has also directed City of Angeles. Who did a nice job of mixing in the narrator of the story Lemony Snicket, voiced by Jude Law (Every movie that came out this year,) in such a way that helped explain the story. The acting was nice, but since all of the adult characters were written over the top, especially Count Olaf, that I did not find any of them enjoyable. I feel Carrey did the best he could with the role of Count Olaf but it appears to be such a difficult role that I don't know if anybody could have pulled it off. I would have liked to have seen Robin Williams in the part. The two child actors, Emily Browning and Liam Aiken (Road to Perdition), who played the middle child Klaus, were quite enjoyable.

From what I have been told, the movie stays pretty close to the books, so if you like the books, by all means go see the movie. If you haven't, I think there are better movies out there.

*This review and others can be read at www.bbmc.dockratent.com

Romeo Is Bleeding (1993)

Oldman drives this modern day Film Noir movie

[8/10 · 25 April 2005]

With apologies to Jim Carrey and Harrison Ford, Gary Oldman is the best actor to not win an Academy Award. He treats every role that he is given and provides legitimacy for every movie he has been in. For proof of this please rent "The Fifth Element" and realize that he is the one of two reasons why that movie doesn't suck. Much like that movie, "Romeo Is Bleeding" is made by the intensity brought to the screen by Oldman in this film noir-esquire type thriller.

Oldman (Leon: The Professional) stars as Detective Jack Grimaldi, a cop who is on the take with the local mafia. He provides any and all kinds of information including where federal informants are located. However, when the mafia sends a Russian hit man or woman to take care of an informant, she kills not only the informant but the cops protecting him. Mona, played by Lena Olin (Chocolat) gets caught by the cops and Jack is hired by the mafia boss Don, played by Roy Scheider (Jaws) to kill Mona. Mona gets away and hires Jack to double cross Don. Don finds out and threatens Jack's wife and girlfriend as well as Jacks life if he does not kill her. Jack then tries to come up with a plan to get away from everybody and try and save is failing marriage.

As I have said Oldman carries the movie with his acting. He has this dry wit that works so well in these anti-hero roles he takes on. In this movie he is a true anti-hero. Whenever he is sitting with his wife, Natalie, played by Annabella Sciorra (Chasing Liberty) you can see that he loves her. All of the money that he takes gets from the mafia is going to make a better life for the two of them. But he also has a girlfriend, Sheri, played by Juliette Lewis (Starsky & Hutch), and he treats her like she is, easy sex. Oh, and she is not the first girlfriend Jack has had, so he has been cheating on his wife for a long time. Through all of this, Oldman gives a convincing performance and never once is he not believable as this very loving but evil guy.

Lena Olin is also convincing as this mean spirited, well, bitch. Along the lines of film noir, Mona is the main cause of Jacks downfall, and Lena plays it perfectly. She adds to the tension and is remarkable in that every scene she is in there is a felling of uncomfortableness that Oldman works off of wonderfully. Both Olin and Oldman light up the screen together.

I do have a few complaints, not big though. Roy Scheider is miscast as the mob boss. Not to be stereotyping but he doesn't look Italian, he is definitely not give the image of being tough enough, and there is another actor Dennis Farina (Striking Distance) in the movie that would have been perfect for the part, so its hard not to think how much better he would have been than Scheider. I like the acting he has done in the past, especially Jaws, but not his time.

One last actor of note, Michael Wincott (The Crow) had a small role in this film. I have always enjoyed his work, especially "The Crow" and I don't know why he doesn't get more work. His voice and demeanor make him the classic bad guy and I wish he was out there in more prominent roles.

I am amazed that a woman wrote the script for this movie. There are no scenes in the movie that I would say a woman would enjoy. This is a guy movie. How Helen Henkin, who also scripted Road House, knows how to make a guy happy I don't know, but she does. Another complaint is that she did a marvelous job in that every word of dialog is important to the story, but sometimes the scene was a little long. I don't know how, but she should have tightened up some of the scenes. The director Peter Mednek should have noticed this and make the movie flow quicker. He did a great job of bringing us a modern day film noir movie. I just think the pacing could have been quicker.

Overall, this is an enjoyable movie, which makes the fact that this was a challenge from Benn all the more fun. This is not a movie for everyone, especially women, so if you feel like watching a decent film noir flick, rent this, just pay attention to every thing and you will enjoy it. Oh yeah, you get to see Lena Olin's breasts too.

*This movie and others can be read at www.bbmc.dockratent.com*

Christmas with the Kranks (2004)

Pretty darn good Christmas movie full of fun.

[7/10 · 23 April 2005]

I disagree with the critics on this one. I thought Christmas with the Kranks was quite hilarious and ignored the sappy meaning of Christmas theme until the final 20 minutes. However once the movie reached that portion of the movie it slowed down painfully and left a sour taste in my mouth.

The story is pretty basic, Blair Krank, played by Julie Gonzalo (Freaky Friday,) joins the Peace Corp. and heads to Peru during the holidays for a full year. The Kranks, Luther, played by Tim Allen (The Santa Clause 1, 2) and Nora, played by Jamie Lee Curtis (Halloween, True Lies,) decide to boycott Christmas and head to the Caribbean on a cruise, much to the dismay of the neighborhood lead by Vic Frohmeyer, played by Dan Aykroyd (Ghostbusters, 50 first dates.) On Christmas Eve, Blair calls and tells her parents that she is coming home for Christmas with her boyfriend who wants to experience a true American Christmas with parties, snow and all of the trimmings. So it's a race against the clock to see if they can pull it off before she gets home.

Like I said the beginning of the movie is quite hilarious. The scenes between the Kranks and their neighbors who want them to celebrate Christmas are the funniest I have seen in a Christmas movie since Natl. Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. Luther with his Botox is just great.

However, the last 20 minutes of the movie when the Kranks are trying to get the Christmas Eve party together, with the help of the whole neighborhood, drags the movie down a lot., so much in fact that you almost forget the laughter in the first act of the movie. There is also a pointless couple of scenes with a burglar that don't make since.

I thought Tim Allen and Jaime Lee Curtis were cast perfectly for each other, all though at times Curtis reminded me of Patricia Richardson who played Allen's wife in the TV show Home Improvement. Along with Aykroyd, the supporting cast is full of very recognizable faces and some even provide humor to the story.

Overall, I say that this movie is a pretty good Christmas movie. If the last half of the movie was as funny as the first half, and if they would have ignored the whole spirit of Christmas message, this movie would have been as great as my favorite Christmas movie of all time, the afore mentioned National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. However, since it wasn't and they didn't, this movie only gets a pretty good rating. But I still say go see and ignore the rest of those idiot reviewers and listen to me! *This movie review and others can be read at www.bbmc.dockratent.com*

The Interpreter (2005)

Boring Political Drama instead of suspenseful thriller.

[4/10 · 23 April 2005]

So after the first hour of the movie I kept asking myself why Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn are in this suspenseful, detective, who done it. However, 15 hours later when the movie FINALLY ended, I realized that this movie was a political drama and both Kidman and Penn were perfect for this yawner.

OK, Nicole Kidman (Desperate Housewives) stars as Silvia, an interpreter at the United Nations who overhears a conversation between two people talking about the assassination of an African President who is accused of genocide. Tobin Keller, played by Sean Penn (21 Grams), is a Secret Service agent assigned to protect foreign dignitaries, and gets to investigate Silvia. Blah, blah, blah! The plot and outline description can go on for another four hours, but I don't want to torture myself again, so I will just get to the complaints.

All of the trailers show Sean Penn's character basically saying he thinks Kidman's character is lying to him. Well, if there was a twist and maybe she was telling the truth but it was hard to prove, that would be worth investigating, but she was lying from the beginning and everybody in the audience new it or should have known it. There was no suspense to Kidman's character, you knew she was hiding something all of the time. Now, there was suspense when you were trying to figure out what lie she was going to tell Keller. But the movie took way to long to figure out the obvious.

Nicole Kidman was poorly cast for this movie. It's not her fault since supposedly she did not read the script before signing on. Her character kills a small kid years before the time that this movie takes place, Kidman can't pull that kind of character off. There was picture of her holding a gun and it just was wrong, and then the final scene with her holding the gun to the bad guys head, um, no. She is a great actress and wonderfully beautiful, but some other actress should have been cast, not Kidman.

I thought Sean Penn did a good job, but I couldn't figure out why he was in this movie after the first hour. He doesn't do action movies, at least not now. But once the movie switched to the whole politics is best served by talking and not the gun, then it made perfect since why he was in this movie. This was his subtle anti-Iraqi war movie statement. He did a good job but if I knew what this movie was REALLY about, I would have gone in with a completely different mind set.

I would also like to bitch about Sydney Pollack and his directing. Every scene seemed to last 5 minutes longer than necessary. It was like he was making a statement, putting it in bold, and italics, and then underlines it. I know the writing has something to do with it but still a director should know when to edit out the pointless staring that the characters do. Ten seconds of staring is OK, what seemed like 45 years of staring in the same scene, too much.

Overall, I can't recommend this movie, it is painfully long, Kidman is miscast, and it is not a suspenseful thriller but a political drama. So if you like long-winded political statements in a movie, have fun, and bring your hemorrhoid cream.

*This movie review and others can be read at www.bbmc.dockratent.com*

The Amityville Horror (2005)

Decent Horror flick copying stuff from Japanese imports.

[6/10 · 21 April 2005]

**A few spoilers, but not many*** Yet another remake of an older horror movie, this remake of the 1979 film of the same name is better than the original but it is not going be remembered for anything extraordinary. The best thing about the movie is the performance by Ryan Reynolds. He did an outstanding job. The movie was scary but not terrifying.

This movie is very much loosely based on the events that happened to the real life George and Kathy Lutz in Amityville New York, in December 1975. The Lutz's had bought a home that had been the place where a whole family was murdered by the older son, who claimed while he was on trial that he heard voices that told him to murder his family. The Lutz's were told what happened before they purchased the house and went ahead and did it anyway. Twenty eight days after moving in, George Lutz left all of his possessions, including clothes, and took his family to relatives and abandoned the house.

The movie begins by following the elements of the true story, including showing the murder of the Defeo family by Ronald. George, played by Ryan Reynolds (Blade III), and Kathy, played by Melissa George (Down with Love,) Lutz move into the house even though they are told by the realtor what happened a year earlier. Almost immediately, George begins seeing visions and Kathy's daughter Chelsea, gets a new friend named Jodie. It turns out that Jodie is the daughter of the Defeo's and the last child killed by Ronald. George meanwhile begins to be possessed by the house and his demeanor changes over the course of 28 days. Kathy goes into town and finds out that there was some kind of torture chamber for Indians in the basement of the house. However by then George has become possessed and is going to try and kill the family.

Scare wise there is nothing new. It uses lots of shadows moving around and weird sounds and large thumps and so on that are your standard in haunting movies. It was unnerving to see the little girl as apart of the scare tactics. The very first night in the house she appears to George as being hung above the bed. Movies are starting to use little girls and children in general as tools to scare which is good because of every one's nature to want to protect them and to show them in scenes of death add to that fear. The bad thing is that if Hollywood is forced to use these children as scare tactics, they must be running out of ideas to scare people with.

I am finding it interesting that Hollywood is also remaking horror movies from the 60's and 70's. With the previously released Dawn of the Dead, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and the soon to be released House of Wax, it would appear that other than the Japanese invasion of horror stories, Hollywood is now remaking stuff that was already done. I guess they are running out of ideas, or there is no one in Hollywood with original thoughts. Which means in another 10 years we will have remakes of Friday the 13th and Halloween, I weep for the future of Hollywood horror.

Ryan Reynolds was a bright spot in the movie. He did a great job with creating a character that must become evil from good. Playing a character that is real and alive must be difficult for an actor, but he makes him believable. Lutz's character is the star of the show as is the little girl(s). Both Chloe Moretz and Isabel Conner do great job as Chelsea Lutz and Jodie Defeo respectively. Every time Jodie showed up, I wasn't scared as much as I was angry that a child was hurt. Still it was a good effort by both and hopefully both of these girls can continue to get more jobs if for nothing else than to give Dakota Fanning a break so she can go to school.

The script followed your basic house haunting movie. Screenwriter Scott Kosar appeared to me to venture very far away from the "true" story of the Lutz's. George Lutz offered to be a consultant for the show but was declined. Probably because Kosar's script looks like it stole some ideas from our Japanese friends across the Ocean. As does the director Andrew Douglas, who steals from Japanese movies, particularly The Ring and/or The Grudge. The little girl Jodie is all black and looks like she was drowned with a hole in her head, even though she was shot with a shot gun in her bedroom. Not very consistent.

There was some cheese in the movie. The whole scene with the babysitter who was probably 19 or 20, first hitting on a 13 year old kid, and then getting trapped in the closet that was where Jodie was found dead was completely a cheap scare scene and not very good. The very last scene where Jodie is standing in the house all alone, crying because the Lutz family left, and then get grabbed by ghostly hands and pulled through the floor was not scary or unnerving, just stupid.

But the movie is not that bad. There are some scenes that are pretty good. Go ahead and see the movie, there are a lot worse movies out there, but it is not the best. The movie should be good for a scare or two for your girlfriend, maybe even boyfriend.

Fever Pitch (2005)

Original Idea created by the Farrelly Brothers

[7/10 · 12 April 2005]

This movie was by far the best performance that Jimmy Fallon has produced on the big screen. Another romantic comedy produced by the Farrelly brothers who brought out the talents of Fallon and Drew Barrymore, "Fever Pitch" is a nice movie which is more about relationships than Baseball.

Lindsey, played by Drew Barrymore (50 First Dates,) is a career minded women whose life is driven by her successful career. She meets Ben, played by Jimmy Fallon (Taxi,) who is a school teacher but is an obsessed fan of the Boston Red Sox. Lindsey falls for Ben before the season starts, and doesn't quite understand how intense of a fan he is until the season starts and she tries to have a relationship that must work around the Red Sox drive to the World Series.

"Fever Pitch" brings to life the relationship dilemma that women have with men who are fans of a sports team, be it baseball, football or whatever. A lot of women have a hard time understanding the devotion a man has to his team. Likewise, men do not understand the problem women have with their devotion.

This movie brought to light the acting talents of both Jimmy Fallon and Drew Barrymore. This is the first movie I have seen Fallon in that I have been able to stand him and Barrymore needs to continue to find directors who now HOW to direct her so she can continue to do quality work. Just a hint, Charlie's Angel's is not that movie or director(s).

I also enjoyed the direction by the Farrelly brothers who continue to show that when they have a modicum of talent in front of the camera, they produce quality movies. I also found the screenplay by Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel was written smartly and humorous even if it the resolutions to the conflict were unoriginal which creates conflict for me because more often then not I do not like there screenplays. They are very hot and cold writes for me, either I like their work, like "Spies Like Us", or I hate it, like "A League of Their Own." Overall, I say go and see this movie with someone you love, and if the two of you can relate to the movie then even better, maybe you will learn something that you can use latter on.

**This review and others can be seen at www.bbmc.dockratent.com**

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)

Propaganda, Not Documentary

[1/10 · 2 April 2005]

Documentary - Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film. * Propaganda -Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause i.e. wartime propaganda.*

* Definitions found at Dictionary.com.

It is unusual to start a movie review with definitions of two words, but this is the essence of my complete and total dislike of the film "Fahrenheit 9/11" written and directed by Michael Moore. If Mr. Moore promoted this film as a propaganda film, then I would probably give this my highest rating possible. But he falsely promotes and maybe even believes that this is a documentary film about President Bush and the events leading up to and after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Since he essentially lied to the American public to try and convince voters to vote for his candidate by the use of this "documentary," I feel his actions are inexcusable and are of the lowest of the low. I feel his comments in producing and promoting this movie are on the same level as the lies committed by President Nixon during Watergate, and President Clinton during the Monica Lewinski scandal. All three of these instances showcase lies to the American public with the appearance of honesty, and that is not what why founding fathers created this country. I have two main points that show why I feel that this is not a documentary but a propaganda film.

1.) In the first 30 minutes of the film Moore explains how George W. Bush was able to steal the election from Vice President Al Gore. He states that his father, President George H.W. Bush was able to get elected, nominate and confirm some Supreme Court justices that would eventually hear the Supreme Court case Bush vs. Gore. Moore also states that Bush, the younger, new to have his campaign manager be the attorney general of Florida, who overseas the election results. Moore also says the Bush was helped by his brother, who is the governor of Florida. Moore states that Bush did all of these things to help steal the election from Gore.

Well, according the Michael Moore, Bush is not only a genius, but a person who can tell the future. You see, for all of this to be true, Bush had to have known in 1987, that his father would win the presidential election in 1988, have two Supreme Court justices retire during his father's term. Know that his father would be able to nominate and get confirmed who he wanted on the Court. To know that his father would lose the election in 1992 AND that President Clinton would win in 1996, meaning he would be a two term president. Moore also must think that Bush new he would win the election to become Governor of Texas in 1994, and again in 1998, and to know that his brother Jeb Bush would become Governor of Florida, and ask the Attorney General of Florida, a close family friend, to be his campaign manager, AND LASTLY, to know that Florida would be the deciding state in the 2000 Presidential election. Wow, maybe I have Michael Moore pegged wrong, maybe he is a big supporter of Bush.

Too me, this is pure propaganda, but we can't use that word because most people of history will be reminded of one of the greatest propagandist of all time, Leni Reifenstahl. She was the German filmmaker, who in 1935 made a movie called "Triumph of the Will." This too was a documentary on the great way of life the NAZI party and its leader, Adolph Hitler, offered to the people of Germany as well as the world. Now I am not comparing the two directors, I am just showing what some people will think of when you say propaganda film.

2.) The other example of why I think this is a propaganda film is that on the night before the election, Michael Moore distributed his movie as a pay per view event on TV. He wanted to try and convince some last minute voters to change their mind. I have already commented on my problem with this, being promoted as a documentary.

As a documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11" is one of the worst movies every made. If documentaries are to show, "objectivity without editorializing," then this movie is not even close. When this movie is promoted as a propaganda film, I will offer a different opinion, until then, this movie and its director, deserve no praise, only ridicule.

This review and others can be seen at Brian and Benn's Movie Corner at www.dockratent.com