Change Your Image
marvint
Reviews
But I'm a Cheerleader (1999)
Campy and funny at times, but flat and extraordinarily predictable
The reviews for this movie made it sound funny, well acted and well directed. And a few parts of it achieve the first two.
But virtually all of the supporting characters are NOTHING but stereotypes. All gay men are effeminate, all effeminate men are gay, all lesbians are ... you get the idea. And while perhaps that can be partly excused due to the intended campy feel of the film, it was annoying.
I was definitely very disappointed in the quality of the script. I had expected something similar to "Saved!" (which I love), but it's like the high school film class attempt at it.
Even so it's a mildly amusing film that did redeem itself somewhat in the ending. Rent it if you're short list of films is finished, but you might end up watching chunks of it on fast forward like I did.
Jingle All the Way (1996)
Don't bother
This movie really surprised me.
But not in a good way.
Although the commentary it makes on American "gotta have it" gift obsessions might be a worthy subject, mostly the comedy was extremely forced and not funny.
My biggest objection, though, was the distinctly nasty characters that are the would-be protagonists. Had the violence been truly slapstick (think Keystone Cops or such) it might have been OK -- but touted as a kid's movie, this had far too much normal (if poorly acted) aggression and anger.
I would DEFINITELY not recommend this movie for kids, and for that matter not for adult either.
Rating: 2 stars out of 10.
Cold Mountain (2003)
If only I'd known...
I found this movie to be disturbing and difficult to watch. It seemed to relish in multiple, long sadistic scenes of tyrannical people torturing the innocent, and has an overwhelmingly depressing aura.
But if you enjoy that sort of thing... maybe you'll like this. I haven't read the book (my wife has) but despite her appreciation for the book: after seeing this, I'll skip the book too.
Ruby (Zellweger) is excellent, Sally (Kathy Baker) is very good too, but it wasn't a movie I enjoyed, especially given the high expectations that I had.
I gave it 4/10 stars.
*SPOILER* Apparently that the ending in the book isn't as sad/depressing as it is in the movie. Maybe just read the book & skip the movie?
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
Only 200 minutes?
I really enjoyed this movie -- well about 45 minutes of it.
Unless you are a die-hard fanatic for the LOTR books (and maybe even then) you'll want to watch this with one finger on the fast forward button.
Some scenes were excellent, but not enough when diluted by so much "filler." The special effects may have been masterful, but they didn't make it a great movie.
The movie simply takes itself far too seriously; how else could the director possibly justify being almost 3.5 hours long!?!
Similarly to voters here -- this is rated as #3 in the top 250 of all time. That is *SO ASTOUNDINGLY OVERRATED* that I cannot understand it (this with 65,000+ votes). It probably belongs in the top 1000, perhaps about #800. [How has the studio managed to create 45k+ IMDB accounts to skew the voting?]
The basic flaw of the entire trilogy is that it's based on a long-winded, violently racists set of books. Starting from that, you end up with.... well, you know.
Truthfully, this is a 7/10 -- but it could have been a 7.5 if they'd actually done some editing down to ~1.5 hours.
Le divorce (2003)
Not that bad...
I'm amazed at how badly people are rating this movie. While it meanders and the plot seemed more than a bit contrived, and was nothing like I was expecting , it was *not* bad.
In general, the acting was more than adequate. Naomi Watts carried the film, and Glenn Close did an excellent jobs, too. But it would have been far better if the driving characters (of Poupand, Modine and Lhermitte in particular) hadn't been so poorly scripted. Hudson's character, too, was poorly done. Her character, the parents and even the brother had was such promise, but it went unfulfilled.
Rating: 7/10
Adaptation. (2002)
Not top 250!!! Not even top 1,000...
Wow. I cannot imagine that anyone would give this movie a 10/10 (I gave it a 3). Were we watching the same movie? I'm not sure... my wife enjoyed it (she said maybe a 6 or 7) but I found it completely unengaging.
Cage's performance was unguided, while Streep was simply wasted. I was left with an *overwhelming* sense that the producer and director wanted to believe that the audience was gullible enough to be entertained by just the reflective twist. It failed, badly, although it would have been an okay addition to a movie that had *something*else* going for it.
The only character I didn't want to eliminated was the "other" brother (also Cage). The main characters should have been off'ed early in the movie. The ending was pathetic (literally, it would have evoked sympathy if I hadn't been subjected to it). And the idea of a movie about a blocked writer who writes about a blocked writer -- it is *NOT* interesting.
The comparison to _Being_John_Malkovich_ is not completely unwarranted, but neither is a comparison with a mediocre performance of a high school play. Frankly, it astounds me that this movie is (currently) in the top 250, or even in the top 1000.
THE BOTTOM LINE: don't bother. Read a book, catch up on paying your bills, or play tik-tak-toe by yourself -- it will be time better spent (okay *maybe* not the tik-tak-toe).
Pumpkin (2002)
Dazed and confused
I'll start by saying that I liked "Pumpkin" - but not as well as I'd hoped. As others have praised and/or lamented, it is confused and doesn't quite seem to know where it's going. While some see this as awful and others as delightful, I'd attribute it to a lack of focus or a failure on the part of the filmmakers, NOT to inventiveness.
Had I EXPECTED a jumble of satire, dark humor, romance, campiness and outright absurdity I might have rated it a lot higher (I grabbed this on impulse).
In it's praise I will say that for the most part it treats the mental disability as a facet of the character and refrains from making (too many) cheap jokes and or sweeping generalizations about people who are or others who love/hate/abhor the mental disabled.
[Rating: 6/10]
Best in Show (2000)
Better than mediocre
I must say I was disappointed with this film. Although it is well acted and directed, the underlying story simply plods along too slowly.
Granted, in another mood I would have liked it better. I did chuckle a lot, but rarely laughed out loud; and there was actually a sense of suspense to discover who won. But in contrast to another movie that my wife picked up the same day (one neither of us had heard of before) this one paled in comparison.
If you see lots of movies, then by all means see this -- it's distinctly better than your average fare. But if you (like me) have limited time and want to watch only the best and most entertaining, save this for later.
[Rate: 7/10]
Happy Accidents (2000)
Finding this was a... Happy Accident
My wife picked this up on a fluke one evening when our 3-yr-old convinced her to cut the movie-browsing short <g> ... and I was very delightfully surprised.
The movie is a bit hard to characterize, although "romantic comedy" fits pretty well. The characters are engaging, and the story pretty fast paced as the viewer is drawn into Ruby's story.
[Possible Spoiler Alert] The movie centers on Ruby's conflict about Sam; while her mother advises her to enjoy the precious moments in life, her friend suggests that she "play along" with Sam's lunacy, and her therapist keeps pushing her to clarify why she stays with Sam given her long line of unhealthy relationships. Meanwhile we see Sam have episodes and hear his outlandish but self-consistent story of how he has traveled from the year 2470 as he speaks of and shows his love for Ruby.
Rating: 9/10
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Very good, but not a 10!
After sitting through three hours of this movie, I must say that I left the theater a little disappointed. I definitely enjoyed it, but must say I had a few criticisms:
1) It was much too dark (as in illumination, not w.r.t. mood),
2) Many scenes were simply blurry: especially when the camera was moving in a crane shot, other times, too,
3) The director couldn't decide if he was making a movie of the premiere classic fantasy books or a teenage horror flick: there were too many scenes where they just lulled the audience only to flash us with a fearful surprise (the woman next to me spent a great deal of the time jumping in fright).
If you're contemplating seeing this movie -- definitely do, but don't expect a movie worthy of the ratings it's gotten here on IMDB. It's very good, but not a 10 (more like an 8 or 8.5)!
Montana (1998)
Surprisingly Good
I picked up "Montana" on a whim, and was very plesantly surprised by it.
I'll concede that there were some holes in the story, and some of the characters were very flat, but Claire and Nick made a VERY interesting study.
There were enough plot twists that I didn't forsee to keep me surprised, and the main characters were definitely engaging enough to keep my interest.
However, the violence and carnage were definitely worse than was necessary (comparisons to Tarantino seem justified).
I'd give it a 8 - not great, but interesting and engaging.
Red Planet (2000)
Ho hum.
I will agree that the production and cinematography were good and the acting was fine, but not good enough to carry the script.
I have a few problems with "Red Planet" --
1) The setup (Earth is dying, 10 billion people move to Mars?) requires way too much suspension of disbelief (especially the ending!!!!)
2) The scenes of mars with lots of clouds in the atmosphere?
3) It is just too slow, and didn't hold my interest enough. Some of the twists would have been good sub-plot elements, but needed more story.
I gave it a 5 (of 10), and it is worth seeing ... if you don't have anything better to do. Just be prepared for a slow plot and some bad science.
The Rock (1996)
Entertaining if you can believe it...
I'll start by saying that I enjoyed The Rock, but had a big problem with it in the area of suspension of disbelief. There were too many contrived situations, characters whose actions didn't quite fit with situation or background, omissions and such.
*** MILD SPOILER ALERT ***
The idea that a general would be overcome by righteous indignation, and be driven to blackmailing the Government with a "bluff" (his word) is a bit far-fetched. But to think that this same General (who we find is indeed an honorable man) would actually poise the rockets at a city of millions of civilians is utterly unbelievable.
The idea that Mason (Connery) would know all of the premises as well as he did, AND REMEMBER the tunnels where he spent three days "in the dark" in such detail, is also beyond belief.
The actions of Hummel's cohorts in the last few scenes is also unbelievable.
Well, I could continue, but in summary the film could have been much better, had it not lacked so much fundamental credibility.
But all in all, worth the $.99 rental cost...
Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1992)
Worth seeing again.
This movie (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) isn't high art, but I love it (have the video and have seen it many times). It's extremely campy, and knows it; in fact, it thrives on it.
Don't miss the "Details at 11" style "news clips" during the closing credits -- they are hilarious.
And BTW, if you're expecting a feature length version of the TV series, guess again. The movie preceeded the series by many years, and except for the basic premise they are virtually unrelated.
Hackers (1995)
Entertaining, but not great.
The film was entertaining and not badly done, but the script simply wasn't that great. The "Plague" character was flat, as was Agent Gill.
In general, the hackers' characters were much better, but I would like to have seen more of Dade's relationship with his mother, or more verbal jousting between him and Kate.
Technically, the film was kind of lame. But good enough for a cheap rental...