janefondafan Reviews

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

stupid movie; one of the year's worst films

[1/10 · 8 January 2003]

What a joke this so-called "trilogy" is. It's even worse than "Star Wars". Basically, this is just a typical Hollywood blockbuster movie. The only reason it's not treated like that is because it's based on a series of "classic" books, and it came out in December rather than the summer. The high box office total of this film (and the first one) show how dumb and guillable north americans are. It proves that all Hollywood needs to do for big box office for a film is put some cheesy CGI effects and pointless action sequences in it to send the people running to the theater. This film is really no different from similar stinkers like "Battlefield Earth" and "The Scorpion King". Gollum isn't all that impressive, either. I can't see why the Gollum character is getting so much praise... didn't people see "Attack of the Clones" or the new Harry Potter movie? Newsflash: it's already been done before! Basically, this is just a clever money-making machine. As you can see, the movie features an inexpensive, talentless b-list cast (with the exception of Sir Ian) in roles that just about anybody could play. That way, they could spend the rest of the money on the supposedly "awe inspiring" special effects (which i've already seen in a dozen other films hollywood has churned out this year). This film is far from awe-inspiring... those who consider it that obviously don't get out much. Anyone who prefers a movie with hobbits and wizards rather than real life, obviously leads a very empty existance. Go see a movie with REAL actors giving REAL performances instead of relying on god-awful CGI tricks. I honestly think in a few years time "LOTR" will suffer the same backlash "Titanic" did. Another thing I can't understand is how the critics have praised this one so much.. well, go figure, i guess.. BUT DON'T GO!

1/10 - one of the year's WORST films, along with "Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever" and "Left Behind II"

Gangs of New York (2002)

Intense, disturbing and powerful

[10/10 · 4 January 2003]

Well, I just got back from seeing "Gangs of New York" at the theater, and I have many positive things to say about this film. It's easily the most powerful film I've seen this year, even topping the excellent "White Oleander". I have never seen a film portray poverty in the 1800's as well as this film did. It also made me feel like I was there, witnessing the poverty and brutality. It's a film that makes us be thankful that times like those have passed, and for us not to forget those who lived and died during those times. It's also a film that's not afraid to show war in its total uglyness. Martin Scorsese definately got his point across with this film, but he didn't do it alone. The cast were all excellent in their parts, no bad acting here at all. Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz showed they are more than just pretty faces. Daniel Day-Lewis was magnificent as "The Butcher", a character whom you want to both love and hate. Quite simply the best film I've seen all year, and I hope it will get nominated (and win) many Oscars. Even if it doesn't, it's a true winner in my eyes. Nice to see that Hollywood can actually do something useful with a $100million budget for once. This was playing at the theater the same time as "The Two Towers"... unfortunately, most of the people in the long line-up went to see "TTT"... they sure missed out, since GONY has more to say in the first 10 minutes than LOTR has to say over 3 hours. Although this film is rather long (2 hrs 47 mins), I was so provoked by it that the time flew by. "Gangs of New York".... A film that's not to be missed!!

10/10 - Higly reccomended!

Everybody's Famous! (2000)

A very fun little film

[10/10 · 30 December 2002]

This film was reccomended to me by some Belgian people I talk to on the net, they said it was one of the best to come out of their country so I decided to check it out. All in all, I have to say that I really enjoyed it. It's not entirely original, but what it lacks in originality, it makes up for with it's ability to charm and entertain. I don't want to give away too much of it, but the story mainly revolves around fame and the desire to achieve it. Of course, it's always much harder for some, more so than others; mainly those who aren't blessed with the looks, or all of the talent. "Everybody's Famous" is one of those rare, truly "feel good" films that don't come around too often. Hollywood often tries to make films like this, but often fall flat by making it too cutesy. One thing I don't understand about this movie is how it ever got rated "R"... were the ratings board members drunk or asleep the day they rated this movie? There's no bad language in it, and only a brief amount of (non-explicit) nudity. So, if you're wondering if it's appropriate for the younger crowd, I would definately reccomend it for them; it should've been rated PG-13. The bottom line is, if you appreciate charming, feel-good flicks about the various struggles in life, then you'll love this. It was also nice to see that this film was nominated for an Academy Award in 2001 (Best Foreign Language Film).

Happiness (1998)

A modern masterpiece

[10/10 · 30 December 2002]

*may contain some spoilers*

First, I'll start off this review by saying sex is a powerful thing. It seems to have the power to control everything. People these days are always looking for more ways to have better sex lives, some are even making money from it. Of course, everyone wants to get laid, and we've seen many, many films about people who get sex all the time. However, there haven't been many SERIOUS films (not counting some lame teen comedies) about those who just can't get sex... either because they're considered too unattractive, their desire is out of reach, or what they want is just too taboo, or even illegal. Probably the first film i've seen to accurately portray what i've mentioned is "Happiness". I've never seen sexually unsatisfied people portrayed so accurately in a film until I saw "Happiness". Todd Solondz is a brave filmmaker, and goes where nowhere else has gone in a film before. None of the characters in this film seem to be satisfied with their sex lives and their problems differ. One is a self-proclaimed boring and unattractive person who desires his beautiful neighbor but of course, can't have her; another is a seemingly typical middle-class father who hides a secret (and illegal) lust for his son's under-age friends; then we have a woman who is just too emotionally insecure to find the kind of man she wants. These are just a few of the characters represented in "Happiness", and it's guaranteed that you will find yourself actually caring about them by the time the film is over. Of course the most controversial aspect of the film is its portrayl of a pedophile; most people were angered because they felt as if Solondz was trying to make people sympathize with a pedophile, but that's not quite it. You see, the pedophile in this film KNOWS he has a problem, he knows his feelings are wrong... but there's no way he can get help with these problems. He tries to satisfy his forbidden desires by masturbating to teenybopper magazines, but eventually, the desire for the real thing overcomes him. What Solondz is trying to say here is two things: one, a pedophile can be just about anyone (even your friendly neighborhood shrink) and two, pedophilia is something that can be prevented. These kind of people often know they have a problem, but there is no where they can go to get help for it. It's a huge wake-up call. Other than that, I didn't really find the film shocking... I found it more thought-provoking. Many of the scenes here weighed heavy on my mind afterwards, and I was constantly contemplating them in my head for days. Not only must I give huge praise to director Todd Solondz for having the guts to come up with a film like this, I also must praise the cast. They took on some of the most difficult roles in film history, and each one of them nailed their parts. Each line of dialogue in the biting script was delivered wonderfully and believably. I'm really surprised that there was no oscar nominations for this film, although given the difficult subject matter, it's not surprising the often close-minded Academy shunned it (it's amazing to think that one year later, American Beauty, won a ton of awards from the Academy, when it was obviously a watered-down version of Happiness). This is one of those rare films that has the ability to move you and disturb you, but it's definately not for everyone. It should definately only be seen by mature audiences; i'm only 17 but I was able to handle it fine... although I wouldn't recommend it to many people my age, mainly due to the fact that they've been weaned on stuff like "Lord of the Rings" and "XXX", and therefore wouldn't really understand it. Other than that, "Happiness" is perhaps the best movie I've ever seen. The direction, acting and script are perfect. I can't recommend it highly enough for open-minded people.

10/10, one of my all-time favorites

Wild at Heart (1990)

A big disappointment

[30 December 2002]

*warning, some spoilers*

I caught this film on IFC a couple of days ago and was really looking forward to it; I really enjoyed other Lynch works like "Mulholland Drive" and "Lost Highway", so needless to say, I was looking forward to see Lynch's take on the whole "lover's road movie" thing. Unfortunately, most of the movie was rather dull; there was just not a lot going on. It would always go in the same cycle; Lula and Sailor would travel to some small town, have sex in the hotel, meet some weirdos, and then travel to another town and start that cycle all over again. There was nothing wrong with the acting from our two leads; Nicholas Cage and Laura Dern do a fine job with what they have, but they don't have much to work with. However, there is one very good thing about this film, and that's Diane Ladd. She kept this film from being a total bore with her zany, psychotic, and comic portrayl of Lula's slightly strange mother. Her character was the only multi-dimensional one in the film, and I really wish the focus had been more on her instead of Sailor and Lula. It's easy to see how Ms. Ladd got the film's only Oscar nomination, as she's really quite interesting to watch in this movie... for example, you won't know whether to laugh or be shocked when she paints her entire face red with her lipstick. Anyway, all I have to say about "Wild at Heart" is that it doesn't match up to the rest of David Lynch's work, and if you liked "Mullholland Drive" and "Lost Highway" (like I did), chances are you will be disappointed, but it's worth seeing for Diane Ladd's performance.

Bastard Out of Carolina (1996)

Heartbreaking, powerful and disturbing

[10/10 · 8 December 2002]

*MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS*

Well... I just finished watching this film on IFC a few minutes ago... and I can imagine it will stay with me for awhile. To sum it up, this film is like a sucker punch to the gut. It manages to bring to light issues like child abuse and its effects on a family, as well as the hardships of poverty. Yes, this film is "disgusting", but I don't mean that in a bad way. It's just so real.... you usually don't see these issues being covered upon in movies. Unfortunately, things like this happen all the time and those of us who haven't experienced such horror will feel lucky. The things that poor little Bone had to go through would probably make war veterns shudder. On the other hand, Anney is the kind of character that will anger most viewers... you find yourself thinking, how could she be so stupid, naive and selfish? Unfortunately, there are many women like that... and as Raylene says to Bone near the end of the film, we'll never understand why some women have to even contemplate choosing between their baby and their lover. This film touched me in a way no other film had since the first time I viewed Todd Solondz's "Happiness". There are some people out there who will not be able to stomach what is in this movie, but keep in mind this film is NOT exploitative; it is informative. The most disturbing part of this film is that it's not graphic (not counting the couple of brutal violent scenes among adults)... for example, in one scene, Glen asks Bone to sit up front with him, and eventually he lifts her up to sit on his lap. At first, we aren't quite sure what's going on, but after a few seconds, it's obvious... it's all in their expressions. There isn't much nudity in this film, and I'm glad; Anjelica Huston realized she could still make a film with a strong impact without having to be sexually explicit. Of course a film like this needs strong performances to work... and thankfully, the actors were up to the task. I knew Jena Malone had a promising career, but now that I've seen this, I won't be surprised if she wins an Oscar someday. I've never seen such a heartbreaking, intense and powerful performance by an actress who was so young at the time. This role must have been extremely difficult for her, but she nailed it. She made us care about her character; something few child actors are able to do. Jennifer Jason Leigh is also excellent as Bone's loving, but extremely confused mother. Anney is the type of character who just needs to have a man and it seems she's cursed in that way; Bone's father ran off on her, and then Lyle (whom Bone loved and seemed to be a great guy) was killed in a fatal accident. Basically, Glen is the only man she can have, but he hates Bone; she realizes this, which is why she chose him over her own daughter. Unfortunately, Anney doesn't realize that she doesn't need a man... all she needs is her family. Anyway, all I can say is that I highly reccomend this film. It will move you, and disturb you... it'll be stuck in your head for days.

10/10 - HIGHLY reccomended!

Once Upon a Forest (1993)

I cried like a baby at the end of this, when I was 8

[10/10 · 30 November 2002]

I'll always remember the first time I saw this film, in late 1993 when I was 8 years old. This film was really the first film to ever have a large impact on me. Up until then, I had been mainly unaffected by fast, fun, feel-good kids movies with happy endings. This one was different... the ending was only semi-happy and I cried like a baby. Sure, I was only 8 years old... but that was the first time I had cried at the ending of a movie (and the last time, until I viewed "dancer in the dark" a few months ago). Needless to say, this is a very powerful film about family, friendship, and guilt. I'm quite surprised this only has an average rating of 4.7/10 from IMDB users. This film is much better than animated films like "Fantasia" and "Shrek" which have a much higher rating from IMDB users. Sure, it's not as flashy, but it has so much more to say. I think some users are too ignorant/cold-hearted to appreciate what this film has to offer. It's not a cheesy film in the slighest. Anyone with a heart should appreciate its power.

Time Changer (2002)

coming to a school near you....

[1/10 · 14 November 2002]

First of all, this movie reminded me of the old movies I used to have to watch in religion class in school. That's NOT a good thing. Basically, it's just a preachy and pretentious piece of filth, just like the terrible "Left Behind" series. I'm not offended by religious movies... but I am offended when these religious movies just happen to be extremely awful. I would just like to be able to say nice things about a christian movie but it doesn't look like that will happen any time soon. I bet if you gave the bible thumpers a decent budget, they still wouldn't be able to come up with anything good. Just avoid this one. Also, the fact that the "American Family Association" (basically, Reverend Wildmon's lackies) beam about this film on their website is another reason to make me hate it. In fact, after I viewed this, I went home and watched my copy of David Cronenberg's NC-17 rated "Crash". Forgive me father for I have sinned. Hahahahaha!

CSI: Miami (2002–2012)

Better than the original

[12 November 2002]

Most of the time, when a spin-off show is created from a successful original, it falls flat. In this rare case, the spin-off show is even better. I usually don't watch much TV, but CSI: Miami is the only show (other than the Gilmore Girls) that I make sure to watch every week. I find the original CSI to be somewhat dreary; I think the lively setting of Miami and a more enthusiastic cast makes CSI: Miami work better than the original. It's also a very visual show... we are allowed to see all the blood, organs and autopsies, which allows us to understand and become more involved in the show. CSI looks to become as successful as the Law and Order franchise, which has put together two successful spin-off shows. CSI: Miami is superior to them all though. The reason why the show is so great is because of the cast (as I said before), as well as the writers. Hopefully, they can keep doing what they do best and this show will continue on for a long time.

B*A*P*S (1997)

The funniest movie I've ever seen!

[10/10 · 31 October 2002]

Okay, it's quite obvious by the rating this has been given by IMDB users that too many people took this movie seriously. Yes, it's cheesy... but do you honestly think the producers were going after an Oscar when they made this? Simply put... this movie is freakin' hilarious. Who gives a damn about plot or the ending in a movie like this? It's just cheesy fun. I laughed from the opening frame all the way to the end. In a world of unfunny comedies, "BAPS" really stands out as one of the few that made me laugh as much as it did. I love a serious, thought provoking film as much as the next person, but sometimes you just need a movie to entertain and make you laugh.. and not many comedies these days can do that. If you wanna laugh until you're coughing and trying to catch your breath, then I highly reccomend this film to you. DO NOT take it seriously though and constantly point out the flaws... you won't get the most out of it unless you approach it like the laugh-fest it is!

But I'm a Cheerleader (1999)

not a bad film, but could have been better

[22 October 2002]

First of all, it's hard to believe that the MPAA gave the initial version of this movie an NC-17 rating. This has to be one of the most tamest movies to get branded with that rating. Here in Canada, the uncut version had no problem getting a 14A rating.. so what's the deal? Are the MPAA homophobes or something? Or do they just hate to see females being immersed in their sexuality? Either way, they seem to be an old-fashioned group of people. Anyways.. onto the film review. The best thing about this movie is the plot, which is pretty original. I can actually imagine places like "True Directions" existing somewhere in the world. One of the problems with the film is that by looking at the poster, and seeing the trailers, you'd think it's a comedy... but it's more of a romantic drama of sorts. It's still pretty fun, though. This film is very visual for the most part... the colours (bright pink representing girls, blue for the boys) are emphasized quite a bit. Natasha Lyonne takes on a role that's fairly different than what she usually plays. I'm used to seeing Natasha play characters that usually have lots of wit and seem very tough. Here, she's playing a prissy, soft-spoken, sexually confused teenager and she plays the part well. Clea Duvall is also a very underrated actress, and she's absolutely perfect in the role of the butchy "Graham". Another interesting thing about the cast is that RuPaul is featured here, out of drag! Since this movie was down on a tiny budget, I feel that probably due to these limitations, it wasn't as good as it could've been. It had a truly unique plot and a great cast, but some of the scenes never really took off. Still, it's better than most of the stuff out there today and it's an excellent piece of social commentary. If you're interested in a fairly interested gay drama, then I suggest you check this one out.

Moulin Rouge! (2001)

Boring

[1/10 · 15 October 2002]

Moulin Rouge has to be the most boring movie I've ever seen. It's hard to believe a movie that looks so great visually is so utterly dull. Each one of the songs in this movie fall flat and seem to go on forever... they're all very painful to listen to. I'm not really sure how a film like this got big names to star, and a major studio behind it. The whole thing is just an unspeakably cheesy B-Movie hiding behind great cinematography, famous actors, and a major studio. Avoid this dreck unless you want to be bored out of your mind.

0/10 ... it's absolutely terrible.

White Oleander (2002)

extremely powerful film

[10/10 · 13 October 2002]

First of all, those guys out there who see the posters and advertising and assume this is some sappy chick flick, you couldn't be more wrong. What it is, is an extraordinarily moving piece of work. It's the kind of film that hits you right in the pit of your stomach. Personally, my mind has a tendancy to wander during movies, but with this one, I was glued to it right from the first frame to the last. It's been awhile since I found myself so touched by a movie.. and it reminds me of why I love movies in the first place. The performances here are top notch. Alison Lohman (Astrid), I never even heard of her before going to see this... but she tackles this difficult role like she has the experience of an award-winning veteran. I'm not even sure most of the big names could pull off this role like she did. Michelle Pfeiffer (Ingrid), who I was never a big fan of, is also excellent...she has a character who's so beautiful, yet so repulsive at the same time. The mother/daughter relationship her character has with Alison's is probably the most unconventional i've seen in a film, and that's what makes it so compelling. Renee Zellweger, as Clare, also gives her best performance here. Her relationship with Astrid is a beautiful but ultimately a tragedy one, mainly due to Clare's infatuation with her cheating husband Mark (Noah Wyle), but I won't give it away of course! ;)

All I really have to say is, if you want to see a movie with strong performances throughout and an excellent story that will leave you fully satisified (and personally touched) when you leave the theatre, this one's for you. I highly reccomend it to everyone! One last thing I should say though... quite often when a movie comes out that's based on a book, the cliche seems to be for people to say "it wont be/wasnt as good as the book". Now, I never read the book to this movie... but the way I look at it, people need to judge the movie for the movie... not the book. If the directors were to follow the book word for word and detail for detail, we'd be left with a movie that would probably take days to watch. The advantage of a book is that you can have a complete knowledge of what the characters are feeling inside their head, which of course you can't always get in a movie unless they make it obvious or tell you how they're feeling truly. The advantage of a movie is that it brings it all to life... and let's you witness it for what it'd be like if you lived out the story. After all, if you were witnessing these actions in real life, you wouldn't have a book to help you understand what thoughts caused them. So, to all the people who go hating a movie before they even see it, just because it's based on a book... keep in mind that the book and movie are essentially two different things and that both have their advantages. I've honestly never seen a based-on-the-book movie where people were completely satisified with how it was translated to film. You can like both the book and movie separately, you know! :)

My rating: 10 out of 10... HIGHLY RECCOMENDED!!!

Showgirls (1995)

not as bad as you've been led to believe!

[10/10 · 2 October 2002]

Well, I know lots of people love to trash this movie, and I have to admit I was a bit leery about watching it due to this fact; However, I didn't think it was all that bad... in fact, I enjoyed it very much. Sure, it's not ground breaking or oscar-worthy... but it's entertaining, and that's all that matters sometimes. I found both Elizabeth Berkley's and Gina Gershon's characters to be both appalling, yet very likeable at the same time. Essentially, we find out that both had to take the same road in order to be successful... that is, knocking down the one ahead of them to make it there. As for the sex factor... this movie is rated R in Canada, but the way our system works, it's the same as an NC-17 in the USA. Needless to say, there is constant nudity, but it's not quite the "soft porn" it was made out to be. In fact, there is really only one visible sex scene, but it takes place in a pool and doesn't look all that realistic anyway. I guess the suggestive stripper dances were too much for some people or something. Anyway, the bottom line is... if you're looking for soft porn, you'll have to look somewhere else. If you're looking for a good way to kill two hours, or just some good ol' entertainment, check this one out. Watch it and enjoy it for the big, dumb fun it was meant to be.