Change Your Image
kevjohn
Reviews
Turn Up Charlie (2019)
Almost can't believe my eyes
This might be the worst show description I've ever seen. Washed up old black DJ babysitting a little white girl? But the show but works! Is Idris EVER gonna do anything wrong?
Once (2007)
Skip the movie, buy the soundtrack
This was the most unusual movie I'd ever give an "8" rating to. But that would be in following with Ebert's rule that guides us to the belief that a movie's worth should be judged by "not what it is about, but how it is about it." This wasn't so much a film, as much a very long, very boring music video. But the music.... holy singer/songwriter, Batman! The music was fantastic! However, I don't think I would ever recommend going to see a movie because of the music alone. Unless it was a concert film or course. Once had as much music as a concert film, but chose to show it in Story Mode.
--POSSIBLE SPOILERS--
For a movie with almost no plot or story, "Once" still had me scratching my head at times. My concern is purely one of finance. None of the characters appeared to have wealth of any sort, yet the Guy was able to pony up $2000 for the recording studio for the weekend? And was then able to buy Girl a brand new piano as a parting gift? So the busker with a beat up, holey guitar, well-worn clothes, and a job in a vacuum cleaner repair shop has several thousand dollars stashed away in a coffee can somewhere? How does a movie with no plot still have plot holes?
--END SPOILERS--
You could sit through this movie with your eyes closed and not miss a single thing of significance. Your ears will thank you, and your eyes won't care.
EDIT:
I have never done this before, but I need to revise my review. "Once" is now out on DVD, but for the record I haven't seen it since my first viewing in the theaters back in October 2007. So what's changed then? Simply put, I haven't really stopped thinking about the film since I've seen it. None of the Hollywood spectacles I've seen since have been as moving or memorable. The pure simplicity and emotional honesty of "Once" lasts a lot longer than its 85 minute runtime. I guess I initially underestimated its impact on me. I am boosting my vote up a notch, from 8 to 9. I can't wait to see it again.
Poseidon (2006)
This Disaster at Sea Disastrous for Filmgoers
As of August 2006, Poseidon is easily the worst film I have seen for this year. I can think of nothing positive whatsoever to say about this movie. I hesitate to call it a film, because the word "film" connotes at least a modicum of artistry. There is none here.
** Possible SPOILERS **
I am trying to think of a good starting point to begin to comment about this mess. The opening exposition scenes are not even worth mentioning. So let's get to the meat of this film, the dramatic disaster. To say that the event that is underwhelming would be an understatement. Big wave, ship capsizes, nameless, faceless people get thrown around. The effect is extremely less effective than in "The Perfect Storm." Then again, that film took two hours to introduce and develop its characters so that we might have some connection with them. The characters who perished during the initial stages of the disaster were as disposable as the millions these filmmakers wasted on ineffectual special effects.
By the time we narrow the cast down to the ten main characters, it is pretty much a given that we the audience have not been given the slightest assumption of intelligence by the screenwriter. The characters are so stock that after a few lines of dialogue from each, it is not difficult to surmise who will live to see the end of this adventure. I guessed correctly in every instance save one: I was unsure whether Richard Dreyfuss' bland character would make it or not. I guessed he wouldn't because I figured it was some kind of unwritten rule that if you cause the death of another character in a movie like this, even to save your own skin (actually ESPECIALLY if it's to save your own skin), your chances of survival must be dramatically reduced. After Dreyfuss shakes Valentin from the leg he is hanging onto for dear life (which as I predicted made Valentin the first one to bite the bullet), I figured Dreyfuss had sealed his own fate as well. Perhaps the screenwriter simply couldn't come up with a creative way to kill him off.
Other characters are imperiled here and there, but I am quite frankly not interested enough to detail anything else about this dreck. Suffice to say the young, precocious boy survives of course. Cute little kids never die horrific deaths. Not in the movies at least. His mother, who apparently couldn't be bothered to keep an eye on the little brat for five minutes even during a life-and-death flight from disaster, also survives. She shouldn't have. To balance out this nonsense there are a few selfless acts of heroism here and there from the male leads, with each act more heroic than the one that preceded it.
BAH!! It is raising my blood pressure just thinking about this crapfest of a movie. If there is any poetic justice in the world, the screenwriter, director, and producers' yachts will all sink.
The Gathering (2002)
For Ricciphiles ONLY
"The Gathering" is a film that ironically never gathers much steam. Gorgeous locations in the British Isles are wasted on a story that feels like it's building towards something, yet never arrives at anything worthwhile. The story in fact gets quite boring during the early first half of the movie. I sat through this uninteresting mess hoping for an exciting climax to make my hourlong wait all worth it, but I never got one. Instead there was the predictable "twist" ending that I was fearing. What seems like a slow beginning continues through a slow middle then gracelessly plows into a slow conclusion.
The acting ranges anywhere from adequate, to fairly well done, to student film-ish. Christina Ricci is most certainly the only actor in this film that you will have even heard of (although Ioan Gruffudd who plays her like interest in this film will soon be starring in the sure-to-be-blockbuster "Fantastic Four" film). She does well enough here, but where has she ever done any worse than well enough? She has recently been in "Monster," "Prozac Nation," and "Anything Else." Unless you are a megafan and absolutely HAVE to see everything Ricci is in, skip this one and see any of those others.
Cradle 2 the Grave (2003)
Cable 2 the Grave
This is going to be the shortest movie summary I've ever written. I'm only going to comment on what I liked about "Cradle 2 the Grave." This film had some outstanding footage of Gabrielle Union's outstanding cleavage. Outstanding.
There, I'm finished.
Uh oh, seems there's a 10-line minimum to submit a review on IMDB. I'll have to pad this a little. OK, I just thought of something else good to say about this movie. Tom Arnold provided some fairly entertaining humorous moments. For a guy with little talent and an off-putting personality, he is a rather reliable choice for comic relief.
Big Fish (2003)
Relentlessly Uninteresting
I should sue each and every one of the 14,692 IMDB members who voted this movie to an "8.0" rating. I cannot recall seeing a movie I felt was so vastly overrated. This could be yet another case of a moviegoer (that'd be me, folks) seeing a high rating and building his expectations so high that they are bound to be let down somewhat. Even if those set of circumstances do exist in this instance, that does not make the feelings boiling in my craw any more palatable. This movie is better than I think it is, I'll give you that. But an "8.0?" No, sir. I look at where this film resides on the list of the Top 250 and I see a list of films like RAIN MAN, MIDNIGHT COWBOY, NETWORK, GANDHI. BIG FISH does not belong among that company.
After all this negativity you might be wondering what it is that I didn't like about the film. I must admit that I have nothing original to say about that. My gripes are the same ones you've already heard before: the stories Ed "Big Fish" Bloom kept retelling throughout his life were amazingly boring. The acting was superb, the sets and effects were perfect, the characters were well-written and believable, but all those tall tales were less fascinating than a pair of Dr. Scholl's foot cushions. Speaking of "tall tales," there was a film in the mid-90's called TALL TALE (starring Patrick Swayze) which covered pretty much the same territory in terms of storytelling. Older guy tells outlandish stories to an unbelieving youth who comes to realize there were large nuggets of truth in each tale. Come to think of it, there have been quite a few films with that storyline. BIG FISH reminds me more of TALL TALE than the oft mentioned WIZARD OF OZ.
The other main storyline deals with the redemption of a father-son relationship. This was a far more compelling aspect of the film than the yawn-inducing fish tales. However, it was handled in such a low-key manner that it felt as if Tim Burton borrowed a page from M. Night Shyamalan's "Subtlety Playbook." Unfortunately for Burton there have been some outstanding films dealing with father-son relationships. If I had to rank them I'd put BIG FISH in a distant Fourth Place behind THE GODFATHER pt. 1, THE CHOSEN (a must-see, if you haven't already), and THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK. You read it right, THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK! The relationship swings between the Bloom men can't hold a candle to the ones between the Skywalkers. Whereas Will Bloom severed communication with his father for three years because of an inappropriate wedding toast(!), Anakin Skywalker severed his son's hand in a bid to lure him into an evil partnership that would take over control of the galaxy.
BIG FISH is worth seeing, if only for the all-around cast performance. Of special note is Matthew McGrory, a 7'6" giant whose typical character is named something discreet like "Human Sasquatch." Here McGrory gets to play a character who, although he works in a circus sideshow, is a 'real,' likable person who blends in well with the rest of the cast. At the same time he redeems himself for having anything to do with HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES.
The film is visually stunning, true. Tim Burton is a great director, and a great visionary, who can easily be forgiven for the mess that was PLANET O' THE APES. I'll keep my fingers crossed for his next effort. Hopefully he will be teamed with screenwriters who DO belong in the same room as him.
Van Helsing (2004)
Maybe We Should Get Hugh Jackman to Track Down Bin Laden
What a waste. What a shame.
Kate Beckinsale, please retire. Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest.
The only thing worse than than a boring action movie, is sitting next to a group of restless teenagers watching a boring action movie. Sure, it's no one in particular's fault that the teens were expecting every minute of this film to be as action-packed as the Burly Brawl, but that is of little consequence to you while you witness them grumbling and fumbling with their illuminated cell phones in your peripheral vision. Fun times.
The action this film does contain is...rudimentary and yet overdone at the same time. Each action scene goes on for what seems like ten minutes. This is not a big problem except that at about the 90-second mark all the action seemed to be repeating itself. At one point one of our heroes spits out a sentiment to a bad guy that I first heard more than two decades ago in THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY and have heard repeated in a half dozen films since (including DIE HARD): "If you are going to kill someone, kill them. Don't talk." Agreed. Every bad guy in VAN HELSING should have learned that lesson years before this film took place. Instead we're treated with scene after scene of villains slowly stalking our heroes while delivering menacing monologues so lengthy they would have left Rush Limbaugh breathless.
The plot is thin, even with everything the screenwriter tried to cram into it: there's every movie monster of the 20th century except Hannibal Lecter and Godzilla, a romance that condenses out of nothingness, a centuries-old feud, the secret crime-fighting society (complete with hidden HQ and James Bond's Q-like inventors), Dracula's horde of winged babies, the no-nonsense hero with trusty comical sidekick, the beautiful heroine who always needs saving, a duplicitous gravedigger ("It's what I do"), a monster-with-a-heart-of-gold, a quartet of bumbling evil henchmen. If you watch carefully in the second half of the film you will see the kitchen sink.
Hugh Jackman showed flashes of greatness in the X-men films. Here he is mostly flat. The aforementioned Beckinsale is atrocious. Between the horrible accent she affects and the historically inaccurate Madonna-esque pseudo-S&M corseted catsuit, she is about as believable in her role as Roseanne Barr would be (I thought women of that era were supposed to be chunkier anyway). The rest of the actors were decent enough spewing out their rote lines.
Go see VAN HELSING. Or else you won't know what's going on in the sequel.
Tart (2001)
Never had a chance
TART is the worst movie I've seen this year, and that includes both the Affleck/J.Lo bomb GIGLI and the Rob Zombie borefest HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES. I don't know if that's a fair comparison seeing that TART was made two years earlier and probably has a budget half that of even the low-budget 1000 CORPSES. Regardless, all three movies suffer from the same shortcomings: horrible script, horrible acting, horrible direction.
*** SPOILERS *** (although I honestly don't think there's anything to spoil)
TART is about a group of super-spoiled private school kids. Most of them reside in super-sized apartments along New York's hyper-expensive Park Avenue, thanks to the finances of their neglectful parents. The film showcases the aimless life of one of the students (Cat) as she discards her only true friend (as frivolous a person as she was) in the pursuit of the "good life" with the in-crowd. That, of course, leads to sex, drugs, and music that is substantially worse than rock & roll. Everything is overly dramaticized in the way that truly bad movies usually are. Cat's first sexual experience leads to her being branded a tramp and ostracized by her newly acquired circle of friends; her first encounter with drugs leads to her nearly being dumped down a garbage chute after her cohorts believe her to be dead from an overdose. No heavy-handed messages there, he said sarcastically.
That's mainly what the "seen it before 100 times" plot entails. Other minor, and even less interesting, plot details include one friend who steals jewelry and trinkets from all the others, a wild child who lives life on the edge (and finally falls off of it one night in the EAST Hamptons), an anti-Semitic British chick who ends her close friendship with Cat the moment she finds out Cat has a Jewish father, and Cat's strained relationship with her single mother who tries unsuccessfully to get Cat to appreciate the privileged life she has. The thief turns out to be an irredeemable lowlife. The "wild child" is played as a toned down version of one of the Hilton sisters. The British girl disappears from the film after the break-up. The mother/daughter relationship is seen as totally inconsequential until the film's final schmaltzy scene, where she and her beleaguered mother have a reconciliation of sorts. *yawn*
*** END SPOILERS ***
About the cast and crew.... Dominique Swain came on the scene strong with her role as the underaged seductress in 1997's highly watchable LOLITA and FACE/OFF. Her performances were strong enough to land her on quite a few "ones-to-watch" lists at the time. She was 17 at the time and I hope that they will not be the best roles of her career. If she takes a few more roles like the one she takes in TART, it very well may be.
I've only seen Bijou Phillips in one other film (BULLY) and I swear her performance in that one was nearly identical to the one she gave here. I'm not sure if she's incapable of giving varied performances or if it was just a coincidence her roles in the two were so very similar. My guess is that the former is true. I sense this woman possesses very little talent as far as acting is concerned. Here, she is the actress tapped to portray the watered-down Hilton sister. That she gives such a weak performance is amazing considering that she grew up with, and remains friends with, the real-life Hilton sisters. She's essentially playing a version of herself in this film, and doing a damn poor job of it.
As for writer/director Christina Wayne... I know nothing of her other than TART was her first, and only, film project to date. With a first effort like this it is no wonder her career in show business was short-lived.
Undefeated (2003)
Another Boxing Movie. Better Than Most.
It's not TV, it's HBO. That's as good an explanation as any as to what makes UNDEFEATED a step above most boxing-themed movies. It has a great cast of little known actors, decent visuals and fight choreography, and the appropriate level of sex, drugs, and in-the-ring rock & roll. The storyline and character development is the film's only real weakness. But what a weakness to have.
*** SOILERS ***
John Leguizamo, in his directorial debut, stars as a welterweight boxer named Lex Vargas who goes from nothingness to world champ through the course of the film. Along the way he loses touch with what should have been truly important to him, his close-knit support group of friends who were there with him from the beginning. They get cast aside in favor of a high-powered management team composed primarily of a crooked record executive and a crooked promoter. Hmmm, have you ever heard of a record executive or promoter who WASN'T crooked?!? Bad choice Lex. He finds that out for himself when his new team plots for him to throw his upcoming title defense fight in order to secure massive paydays for the rematches. Feeling lost in the world and remembering the "good old days", he returns to the old neighborhood (the Bronx, I think) seeking his discarded friends. After a few touching moments with two of them, he learns another has died and another is wasting his life away in a drunken stupor. He realizes he is facing the true fight of his life in having to decide whether to go along with his old team or the new one.....
*** END SPOILER ***
All that story, but none of it new. What a shame. This would be a good time to say that I think Leguizamo is far too good of an actor (and he's made a rather impressive directorial debut as well) for this material. The only problem is that he's responsible for the material, having co-wrote the story. Actor, director, writer. Well, two out of three ain't that bad.
Note: The ending may be somewhat controversial, but I thought it was great! ANY other ending would have been anti-climactic.
Rating: gets a solid 7/10 for being a solid production of a (sub)standard story.
Holes (2003)
Holes in Time
To be honest, I was inspired to go see HOLES by HBO's "Project Greenlight 2." I went to see this film for the main purpose of seeing Shia LaBeouf's performance. Shia was not bad at all, but compared to other top young actors of the past decade it was nothing special. Haley Joel Osmet (THE SIXTH SENSE, A.I.), Judith Vittet (CITY OF LOST CHILDREN), and Natalie Portman (THE PROFESSIONAL, EVERYONE SAYS I LOVE YOU) have set the bar pretty high, and Shia can't quite get over it. He is squarely in the middle of the pack. Perhaps in the top portion of the middle of the pack, but middle of the pack nonetheless. Victory or defeat at THE BATTLE OF SHAKER HEIGHTS may depend upon how much fight Shia has in him.
Back to HOLES. HOLES is a moderately entertaining film with some fairly sizable negatives. The most notable one if its use of flashbacks. There are flashbacks to at least three different time periods, including a flashback within a flashback. A film like GODFATHER: PART II, with a director like Coppola, can get away with this. HOLES cannot. Its director, Andrew Davis, has had some success with action movies (THE FUGITIVE, UNDER SIEGE) and one notable thriller (A PERFECT MURDER), but most of his films are of the "near miss" or "not even close" variety (COLLATERAL DAMAGE, CHAIN REACTION). He can add HOLES to the former category on his resume.
*** SPOILERS ***
The story is an impossible one: a camp for wayward boys exists in the middle of nowhere where comically sadistic counselors force the juvenile delinquents to engage in backbreaking labor under a blistering sun. There are no attempts to educate them in any way other than "we will beat bad behavior out of you." Gee, I wonder where these kids are going to end up as adults? My first guess would be a state or federal penitentiary. The new guy in camp, Stanley "Caveman" Yelnats, slowly pieces together the information from the flashbacks and discovers the secret of the camp, which I will not reveal here. I will reveal that it's a fairly decent payoff and ties up all the storylines into a neat little package.
This film is great for teens, not too childish and simplistic and not too complex. It may be a little...rough for younger preteen viewers. There are some mild four-letter words thrown around, and a few moments of deadly violence (that aren't actually seen onscreen), and the overall theme is somewhat dark (see previous paragraph). Older viewers won't be put off by the silly moments and will appreciate the depth of this Disney film. They may also appreciate Jon Voigt giving one of his most entertaining performances since the 70's. What happened to THAT guy?
Note: One of the flashback sequences focuses on an interracial relationship between a black merchant and a white schoolmarm. At the showing I went to, when the film showed a close-up kiss between the two, a man gathered his wife and family and ushered them out of the theater, never to return. Ahhh the joys of living in the South.
*** END SPOILERS ***
Rating: a very positive 6/10. Should be a worthwhile rental when the DVD comes out, if you're looking for something light.
Spider-Man (2003)
Remarkably, surprisingly good
I tuned in to Marvel's new animated "Spider-Man" television series after being hooked by the intriguing promos I've been seeing for the previous couple of weeks. I have got to admit I am impressed after watching the first two episodes. Each half-hour episode was fast moving, well acted, and had a tight, concise plot. These are not stand-alone episodes; character development is carried over from episode to episode. The main foreseeable pitfall that I hope the writers avoid is the "Supervillian of the Week" cliche. It's been done in every superhero show ever, and it's a show element that gets tired REAL quick. It might be easier to avoid in "Spider-Man" than in most other shows because as a character Peter Parker had always been at least as interesting as his alter ego Spider-Man. It is not hard to envision entire episodes where Spidey makes not a single appearance.
The show is aired on MTV, which should be a surprise but isn't. It should be surprising because MTV is renown for having a broadcast schedule filled entirely of utter crap. It isn't surprising because although it has been on a steep downward spiral for well over a decade now, MTV has had a rather impressive history of bringing quality post-adolescent animation to the masses. From "Aeon Flux", to "Beavis and Butthead", to "Daria", to the under appreciated "Undergrads" (now seen on Comedy Central), to their current hilarious show "Clone High", when it comes to animation MTV has the goods. Ironically, when it comes to MUSIC, MTV (MUSIC Television) is still sorely lacking.
The show features some relatively big name acting talent giving voice to the show's characters. Neil Patrick Harris (Doogie Howser, Starship Troopers) and Lisa Loeb (a singer known more for her bespectacled look than her songs) take the lead as Peter Parker/Spider-Man and Mary Jane, while other actors of note include Michael Dorn, Michael Clarke Duncan, Eve, and Ethan Embry. I hope they are not paying too much for this star power. If they are that means this must be a rather expensive show to produce. These days that seems to mean short runs and early cancellation. Who wants to pay a small fortune for a well-made show when they can just cobble together yet another "reality" show for a mere pittance?
Adding to the costs (...or perhaps cutting it nowadays) is the animation itself. "Spider-Man" is one of the earliest examples of true 21st Century animation. It is CGI from top to bottom. No farming out the tedious animation work to Korea or the Philippines, where folks would toil away for hours upon hours drawing one animation cel at a time. Now everything is done on computers, to dramatic effect. The look is unique, and the animation and special effects are seamless and super smooth.
Overall I'd rate "Spider-Man" an 8/10. However, that is only after two episodes and is certainly subject to change depending on where the series goes from here.
Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood (2002)
I couldn't do it....
DIVINE SECRETS came on HBO the other night. I hadn't seen it in the theaters, though I wouldn't have minded catching a Sandra Bullock flick. I started watching this film in earnest. About seven minutes into it I could take no more. The Southern Belle cornball accents and attitudes were more than I could endure. Well not really; but more than *cared* to endure. So I changed channels and began thinking of how much money I'd have to be paid to get me to sit through this movie. The figure I came up with? $450.
Super Troopers (2001)
a guilty little pleasure
I know, I know. This movie had a silly little plot, and some rather "iffy" acting. And that's being generous. But still, I loved Super Troopers. From the opening sequence with the drugged-out college kids, to the closing sequence with uhh...the drugged-out college kids, this movie was hilarious. I especially enjoyed the running joke of the other characters making ignorant comments about not knowing Thorny's ethnic make-up. The local police think he's Mexican, his own Trooper captain thinks he's an Arab. Not highbrow stuff to be sure, but oh so funny.
There's no point laying out the film in any detail. You'll either like it or you won't. It is in the vein of "Ace Ventura": paper-thin plot, paper-thin characters, funny gags. I consider it a guilty pleasure that I'm almost ashamed to admit I loved. Almost.
Rating: 8/10 for pure silliness.
*MINOR SPOILERS* DVD: the DVD contains 3 different audio commentaries that are all pretty funny. There's also the obligitory Deleted Scenes and Outtakes reel that shows the pancake syrup the Troopers were guzzling was actual pancake syrup, and the scene of Farva throwing up was the real actor throwing up. Neat.
Dancing at the Blue Iguana (2000)
tries not be just another T&A exploitative movie, but it is anyway
"Blue Iguana" is yet ANOTHER 'serious drama' about a group of females working at a strip club, but fails as nearly every attempt before it has. If the filmmakers claim they set it in a strip club for any other reason than to get some T&A up on the screen, they are lying. There is NO other reason to set a film in a strip club other than for some T&A. As an earlier reviewer noted, they could have set this film in a hospital or restaurant and kept the same characters and storylines. Not that that would be a good thing. "Blue Iguana" features the standard stripper characters as a dozen other strip club movies; the only difference is that they are being portrayed by B-list semi-stars as opposed to C-list nobodys.
As MLDinTN notes, "we got the dumb stripper, the tough/sensitive stripper, the wild stripper, and the young/naive stripper." That's pretty accurate. Then there's the stock stripper movie plot elements: there's the abusive boyfriend(s), the strung-out stripper(s), the gold-digging stripper hoping to meet the Knight-in-White-Armor that will carry her away from all the madness, and the owner who cares far more about making a profit than about the dancers who make the profit for him. Not that all of these characters don't exist in real life, it's just that we've seen them so many times before. MLDinTN also notes, "And none of them do much." I agree so wholeheartedly with that statement that I won't even bother attempting to sum up the "plot" any differently. I've seen at least three different documentaries on strippers that have a hundred times more going on in their lives than the characters in this film. They should have just made another one instead of this weak take on a seedy industry.
Sandra Oh was good as the intellectual stripper. Robert Wisdom was good in his small role as the Blue Iguana's owner. All the other actors are amateurish at best. Jennifer Tilly and Daryl Hannah seemed to be doing impersonations of a manic-depressive Anna Nicole Smith, with Tilly being the manic half and Hannah being the depressive half. Both were ditzy druggies with whiny voices and a total lack of the powers of higher reasoning. None of the other dancers stood out.
Finally, I've been to strip clubs before and I must say that the atmosphere in the Blue Iguana is far too downbeat and moody. Slow music and depressing, lethargic dancers do not mix well. None of the dancers would make more than $10 a night, and the Blue Iguana would be out of business in two weeks. So much for realism.
RATING: 3/10--for doing the same old thing in a somewhat different way.
American Psycho II: All American Girl (2002)
VERY lame attempt to cash in on Amer. Psyco 1
"American Psycho 2" just came on HBO, so I am currently writing this as I watch it. The only question I have about the movie thus far is if I can even stand to watch it til it's inevitably horrid conclusion. So far I've subtracted 2 points from my rating for the opening sequence, an amazingly bad tie-in to the original "American Psycho." Might as well go ahead and subtract another 2 points for the terrible acting displayed thus far. And let's just go and subtract another 2 points for the absurd plot. I enjoyed the original "American Psycho"; shame they've destroyed any chance of a quality sequel. The way they attempt to link this movie to the first one should be a crime.
**SPOILERS**
The movie itself is about a college student with aspirations for working at some special division of the FBI. An almost guaranteed way of getting into the program is by becoming a Professor's teacher's aide. The problem is that this is a much-coveted position and the competition is fierce. She figures the best way to land the position is by killing off all her competitors. Uhhh, right.
Mila Kunis (from tv's "That 70's Show") stars as the murderous college student. She does a truly excellent job of showcasing the fact that she has NO acting skills whatsoever. Her voiceover narrative is sub-par and rather grating. This may be the most unconvincing portrayal any actor has given in a role since Freddie Prinze Jr. played a fighter pilot in "Wing Commander." She should be a role model for pretty girls though. No woman has gone as far as she has on looks alone since Pamela Anderson made her meteoric rise to the middle. And Mila didn't even have to take her clothes off for Playboy.......yet.
William Shatner is the Professor of Criminal Profiling or whatever. He gives a...Shatneresque performance for the film. I happen to think Shatner is a talented actor whose career has been hindered by playing iconic roles in a couple of television shows, not that he or his accountant have been complaining. In recent years he has been reduced to playing caricatures of himself (the Priceline.com commercials, "Showtime"). Here, he does as fine a job as ever doing just that. In fact, he is the only watchable person in the movie. At least he's still working.
The rest of the cast is disposable, much like their murder-victim characters.
An hour and 10 minutes into the movie I'm prepared to give this a 2/10. If you get a chance to check this out for free, and there's absolutely *nothing* else on television, you may want to give it looksie. If nothing else you may get a kick out of seeing Mila Kunis in her jogging outfit and low-cut dress.
Lucky (2003)
We are Lucky to have this show. Rating: 10/10
In the words of Dan Hedaya's character, "Motion is life. Standing still could be fatal." After watching this series' first two episodes of "Lucky", I realized how much most of television programming was standing still. We allow ourselves to grow accustomed to bland, lifeless shows such as "Will & Grace", "Friends", and "Everybody Loves Raymond". And run-of-the-mill dramas like "The Practice", Law & Order", "CSI: Miami". Then when something new and refreshing comes along we realize what great tv is capable of. What "The Shield" is to cop shows, "Lucky" is to tv comedies. John Corbett plays Lucky Linkletter, a compulsive gambler living in Las Vegas trying to overcome his addiction. That he lives in Vegas is not inconsequential. The show plays up the fact that Lucky and his cohorts reside in the gambling mecca of the Western hemisphere by featuring several scenes inside of casinos. In fact, the premier episode begins and ends with Lucky sitting at a poker table. In between these scenes we meet the great cast of supporting characters, see Lucky attempting to go straight (including having joined Gamblers Anonymous), and we learn that he's feeling guilty over the unexplained death of of his newlywed wife. In short, there's a lot of show packed into this half-hour. The question is which Lucky will prevail, the good or the gambler? Can they coexist? Can Lucky even BE Lucky without the gambling? More importantly, will "Lucky" still be "Lucky" without it?
It'd be too cliché to give this show an 11 out of 10 rating, so I give it 10 out of 10--and will reduce my ratings of all other tv shows by one.
The Core (2003)
The Bore
This movie is all setup and no payoff. You know it's bad when an "action" movie stretches the final five minutes worth of action into 30 minutes worth of screen time. But why start at the end? This film has cheese in it from the get-go.
*Spoilers aplenty*
It starts off wobbly, but in a way that looked to be perhaps as promising as Stargate. Drs. Aaron Eckhart and Tchéky Karyo are brought in by the government to offer up their expert opinions on a series of unusual phenomena. After being dismissed by the feds, Eckhart does some research of his own and, based on bird and whale migration patterns, determines that the earth's core has stopped spinning and the world is doomed. After going on a bender, the good doctors alert the feds of the earth's impending destruction. The feds pull out all the stops and assemble a team and plan a mission to tunnel to the center of the earth and restart the core's rotation.
This is all well and good. The problem I had with the film is not the plot, but the execution. About 30 minutes into the movie, the audience has a choice to make: either walk out mid-film, or stay seated and watch as cliché after cliché are thrown at us by the oh-so-inventive writers. (I am currently unemployed, but there are people making 6 and 7 figures to write crap like this??) First, the science is lousy! I'm no good at the science a mission like this would entail, but even I know without a doubt that the science featured in The Core is crap. Next, the characters had about as much depth and substance as the giant Core cutout that dominated my local megaplex's lobby. The characters were so flimsy that, I swear to you, I not only knew who would and wouldn't survive, I knew the exact order in which they would die. That's a first for me. The standard confrontation between the bullish Army brass and the ship's crew was right on cue. The climax is fairly tedious, just a series of small special effects explosions that were less exciting than whether the lady at the concession stand would overfill my medium fruit punch and spill it all over the counter. To make matters worse, the climax takes place a good 20 minutes before the end of the film. What follows is the ludicrous escape from the center of the earth. The ship, having shed a few sections in the execution of the mission, is now as agile as a Porsche, dodging mountain-sized obstructions with ease. Then the Navy sends what looks like half the Pacific fleet out to look for them in a very tight search pattern, but they give up after 10 minutes. "We'll never find them. Let's call it off." Then...well, then it goes on for another yawn-inducing 10 minutes.
What a waste of an opportunity to make an good sci-fi action movie. What a waste of Delroy Lindo and Hillary Swank. What a waste of time.