The People Under the Stairs

Really, Mr. Craven, you should be careful with the films that you make.You're a great director but really, this film sucked; it wasn't funnyand it wasn't clever like NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET. It didn't have muchof a meaning to it, unlike THE HILLS HAVE EYES or THE LAST HOUSE ON THELEFT. The film did have a good plot-line, I'll give him that. I likethe idea of a kid having insane neighbours that have zombies/cannibalsin their basement but he did some things that made you HAVE to hatethis crap. One of them was making him a 'ghetto' kid, living in a dumpand going through odd problems. Another was the acting, dreadful…Thescript and plot were organized, I will say but you if you're going toproduce, write and direct an independent film like this then you shouldreally know how to manage. Avoid this film, if you see it atblockbuster, get A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET instead.

This movie seemed to nullify any target audience. It’s way too campyand silly to take seriously as horror — feels like a kid’s flick.However, it has some "R" rated gore parts to prevent kids from watching– so who is going to watch this movie? Granted, it could have beenworth watching if it had provided more suspense, less CHEESY lines, the"Dad" didn’t seem to all of the sudden be wearing some leather S&M suitfor no reason, better acting, and the gore wasn’tover-the-top-to-the-point-of-silliness.

After having watched Secret Window, this one felt like a very, very badB movie.

Fool(Brandon Adams)has life a bit difficult. His mother is dying ofcancer and sister trying to make ends meets with several children bydifferent dead-beat fathers who are no-shows. They are told to leavetheir crummy apartment dwelling which is so scummy, rats would have ahard time adjusting. They are merely just another case in a whole lineof unfortunate renters evicted from their homes by sicko brother andsister landlords(Everett McGill & Wendy Robie)who have kidnappedmales(they have been stuck inside an isolated room in the basement solong they look like ghouls)searching for the perfect son. They alsohave a female who they abuse named Alice(AJ Langer)who they calldaughter, but she is just like those boys down stairs..her existence isin a room constantly being patronized by mommy zealot constantlyreferring to others' certified trips to hell not even giving a secondthought to the nightmares she has caused in her..and brother's..violentwake. Fool is coerced by thuggish thief Leroy(Ving Rhames)to steal goldhidden in the landlords' home and once inside they become trapped.Leroy is soon dispatched in grisly fashion while poor Fool must findways of escape using different little halls inside the home introducedto him by Roach(Sean Whalen), one of the aforementioned abducted maleswho has adopted a form of transportation as means of getting food fromAlice upstairs. If there is a place to scurry, the tongue-less(cut outby the landlords)Roach can find it. Fool learns a lot from Roach whosoon becomes victims of McGill's shotgun blasting(he carries theblaster everywhere he goes). It's up to Fool to put an end to thecrazies once and for all. Fool also wishes to help out the poor soulstrapped underneath the stairs and Alice. As expected, Fool will runinto pratfalls from time to time because the pair have booby traps andother devices all throughout the house and keep the windows locked &sealed off.

This film is absolutely bird-brained. Wes Craven wishes to expose therich and how they treat the lower class who work under them strugglingto make ends meet, but how can his message really be heard underneathso much silly chaos. And, Everett McGill must have been part of theprogram that made Lee Majors the 6 Million Dollar Man, because I'venever seen a man get hit over the head with so much and continue as ifnothing happened. I mean Fool hits him over the head with a metaltoilet top, a flower vase & a fireplace poker. Robie is throttled inthe knee with the poker and stabbed yet continues. Who are these peopleand how strong can they actually be? There are disturbing layers Idon't even wish to think about only hinted at such as skulls andskeletons dangling about in the room housing the unfortunates, and, atone point, McGill is dressed to the nines in S&M leather suit. There'sa scene where the dog lunges right into Fool yet he's able to defendhimself against a massive, monstrous pit bull! And, at one point Foolblows up McGill with dynamite for Petesake and his body remainsundamaged! Logic and credibility never have a chance to survive in sucha film as this.

This uneven, film takes a great concept but doesn't always know what todo with it. With his family about to be evicted, thirteen-year-old Fool(it's a nickname) agrees to help a thief break into Fool's landlord'shouse to steal some valuable gold coins. Only they get much more thanthey bargained for when they find the bizarre landlord and his equallystrange wife keep several guests trapped in the basement.

"The People Under the Stairs" starts out strong, promising to be asolid horror picture. But it's soon weighed down by its many flaws. Theevil landlord, roaming the hallways of the spooky mansion in a tightleather suit, his rifle in hand, is ridiculously over the top. BrandonAdams as Fool is generally acceptable, but whenever he tries to portrayemotions, particularly fear, he looks like a bit player in a juniorhigh production. Storywise, the film focuses too much on the homeownersand Fool's attempts to rescue their supposed daughter and not enough onthe zombie-like title characters, who held enormous potential.

Though it gets full marks for originality, "The People Under theStairs" doesn't work as well as it could have. Still, director WesCraven has done a lot worse!

Oh my God was this piece of garbage really released in theaters? Thislookslike something you’d see on the fox family channel, it sucks so bad, Imeanthere’s is some good gruesome violence but the story of a 13 year old boyescaping a grown man with a gun and his vicious dog countless times isjusttoo much to handle, I know it’s a movie but it wasn’t believable at all.Donot see this movie!

Oh my was this movie actually released in theaters? it’s so god awful Ican’t believe it even has a 5.5 rating. This little 13 year old boy breaksinto a house to steal some coins and then he somehow manages to escapeabouta dozen scenes from being killed by a man with a gun and his vicious dog,it’s so corny and not believable that I have no idea how anybody could evenenjoy it, it was difficult for me to watch it till the end, 2/10, and the 2is just because I like Ving Rhames

The Question has to be asked has Wes Craven ever made a movie that is scary?The answer has to be a big NO. Were the Nightmare on Elm Street moviesscary?…no.Were the Scream movies scary?…no and neither is The peopleunder the stairs.Again it it hard to tell , as like most Craven films, if this is meant to bea comedy or is it that bad that it looks funny. **** Spoiler Alert****This starts ok but as every minute goes by it gets sillier and sillier untilwe get the farcical situation at the end when the people under the stairsget out and look like Iron Maiden ! The are not scary in any way , in factthey are made to out to be nice people!When i watch a film called "The people under the stairs i want to see reallyhorrific ,dark, devilish creatures that scare the pants of you not a bunchof extras from a rock video.The kids mike like it.4 out of 10.

Everyone I know who watched this movie liked it, but I thought it was quitebad. Yet this one scores higher than "Mind Ripper" here. Just shows I havediffering tastes I guest. This one is more original than that movie, butthis one also is not the least bit scary. The jokes
to me are not veryfunny either, so it is no wonder that I don’t like this. It is about abunch of guys and a kid robbing the house of these slum lords. Well whatthey find is that the house is well protected and that the two that live andpreside over the house are a tad crazy. The kid gets away by hiding in thewalls, then he is caught and put under the stairs with the title characterswho do not play as big a role in the film as the title implies. Along theway we see various things die such as a kid and a dog, but nothing thatwould approach a true horror film. There are also many twists and turnshere and there, but nothing to shocking (well maybe the one revelation is). What you end up with is a movie with no real direction and no real thrillsor chills.

There certain names in the film industry that just get hyped beyondreason, and sometimes I just don’t understand why. Wes Craven isprobably the perfect example of this. "A Nightmare On Elm Street" waslame and "The Last House On The Left" was weak and ridiculously poorlymade. But "The People Under The Stairs" just took Craven to a new levelof putrid, wretched tripe.

Now don’t start rolling your eyes and saying "Oh god, anotherhorror-hating elitist.", I am a huge fan of the genre. But Craven’sfilms are just plain awful, especially this one.

The story is about a young African-American boy who lives in the ghettowith his large family and ill mother. They have insurmountable moneyproblems and their apartment is being foreclosed on by greedy landlordswho want to tear it down and erect an office building. The boy’s oldersister has a thieving, jive-talking boyfriend who tells the boy that heknows where the landlords live and that they have a stock-pile of agolden coins that will solve all of their money problems several timesover. But what makes the boy nervous is the fact that the landlords arethe people everyone in the neighborhood considers crazy, and theirhouse is the one children cross the street to stay away from. Onceinside, the boy encounters unspeakable horrors as the psychoticlandlords try to track him down and keep him away from their sheltered,untouched daughter.

The film is bursting at the seams with racial stereotypes, horrorclichés, poor acting, atrocious writing, and every form of inanestupidity you can imagine. The overly cheap score doesn’t really helpeither.

If you’re looking to get into horror films, stay hell the away from WesCraven and stick to someone who knows what they’re doing, like GeorgeA. Romero or Lucio Fulci. If you’re looking for a fun adventure film,check out something like "The Goonies" or "Raiders of the Lost Ark".Just make sure you avoid this heap of garbage at all costs.

.5/10

Why this film has warranted any kind of praise is beyond me. I wouldwager that most of it’s plaudits come from teenage boys. It isdepressing that films like this achieve any kind of cult status purelybecause of a guy in a gimp suit with a shotgun. If there is anythinggood about this film (and I am clutching at straws here), theperformance of the rottweiler stands out above any of the human’actors’ (Ving Rhames, you should be ashamed.)

If you want horror-comedy done well, watch The Evil Dead I or II. Ifyou want Craven’s own brand of black-humour, watch any of the Screamfilms. If however you want to waste two hours of your life on aterribly acted, scripted and directed excuse for a horror film, then bemy guest. I personally am going to lock this one in the cellar underthe stairs where it belongs, and throw away the key.

read comments (0)

The Last Boy Scout

Shane Black really hit his stride with this mindless regurgitation ofhis own Lethal Weapon. Did he actually write this script with a wordprocessor or wipe it out of his butt on a role of toilet paper? Thereare more unnecessary F bombs in this than there are flying bullets,crashing cars and plot holes combined. Only, unlike a film say like GetShorty, there is very little wit to go with the endless profanity.Sure, teenage boys and IQ-challenged redneck men - and of courseQuentin Tarantino - will have found Willis and Wayans' profane quipsand one liners hilarious, but I just found it to be tiresome andstupidly unnecessary dialogue. Especially when the kid is spewing it.Nice touch there by all involved.

But then again, the whole movie was unnecessary spew. Stupid plot to dowith corruption in pro football and politics, familial dysfunction,infidelity, and a couple of gun packing losers caught in the middle ofit all conspires to make one of the most implausible, noisy, badlyfilmed and edited action crapfests of all time. Tony Scott can bite mewith his pumped up, testosterone charged, colored light filtered,sloppy direction and camera-work. And Shane Black can bite me twice forthe hackneyed piece of crap he called a script.

Bruce Willis just bites in general. I normally miss most of the stuffhe's in because he just doesn't give a damn about how bad a script isbefore he signs on, but sometimes I need a movie fix and there'snothing on but swill like this.

I've always thought Willis looks a lot in some pictures like DickPowell when Powell starred in those classic hard-boiled film noirs ofthe 40's and 50's such as Murder, My Sweet and Cry Danger. And someonemust have told Willis that on the set because he's pretty much doing aPowell imitation here, though the dialogue often lets him down.

The dialogue in those Powell noirs was consistently crisp, tough andhip, and spoken accordingly by actors who had talent. In The Last BoyScout writer Black is so desperately wanting to emulate that kind ofsnazzy dialogue that he often paints himself into a corner, ending uphanding Willis or Wayans an adolescent howler to finish off a back andforth. But then, amid the endless assault of profanity, who reallynoticed?

I won't even get into the disturbing misogyny littered throughout thiswaste of film. A most unenjoyable night at the movies. Why isn't therea -10 rating option?

It’s still very hard to believe that the director of this film, TonyScott,and the director of ALIEN and BLADE RUNNER, Ridley Scott are brothers[eventhough Ridley has blotted his copybook in recent years with 1492: CONQUESTOF PARADISE and G.I. JANE.]

This film is immediately hamstrung by the script’s total lack oforiginalityin dealing with elements as diverse as pro football, political corruptionand teenaged delinquents.

Scott’s uneven and ultimately heavy-handed direction of the mish-mash alsoshows that his brother’s command of visual style and storytellingcomplexitydefinitely doesn’t run in the family.

This movie is reasonably well-acted, well-directed, well-filmed.However, the script has serious deficiencies, mostly in theoverwhelming exposition dialogue that, ultimately, doesn’t goanywhere. Aspects of the characters which are mentioned indialogue have no value to the film and are merely there to makeyou interested in the characters. This tactic must ultimately fall flat.There is also an excess of useless plot complication, bad"trademarks" for the characters and implausible gunfights.

THE LAST BOY SCOUT (1991) ***1/2 Bruce Willis, Damon Wayans, Chelsea Field,Noble Willingham, Taylor Negron, Danielle Harris, Halle Berry. Fast movingaction/buddy flick with down on his luck/burnt out detective (Willis in his"Die Hard" meets Philip Marlowe mode) investigating the murder of a clientand Wayans as an ex-quarterback who gets involved as well with high bodycount and lots of bad puns/snarky dialogue from Shane Black’s livelyscreenplay. Testosterone friendly and some cool chemistry between twolosers.

If you watched "The Last Boy Scout", and at some point thought thatthis could be perhaps be some sort of prequel (or sequel) of the "DieHard" series, do not worry; it is an absolutely natural reaction, since"TLBS" is another typical Bruce Willis action flick, where he plays hisfavorite role: He is the good guy, who has marriage (or other personal)problems, and although starts as a loser, he quickly shows us his wits,stamina, and strength, by chasing the bad guys to death. We have seenthis theme in "Die Hard 1", "Die Hard 2", "Die Hard 3", "16 Blocks",etc etc.

And yet, for some strange reason, it is still a twisted pleasure towatch Bruce play this stubborn role. He has a charisma for it, and hismovies are the proof: Not that he has not played other important rolesin excellent films, as well ("The 6th sense", "Unbreakable", and"Twelve Monkeys" are some great examples). It is simply than in filmslike "TLBS" he provides us with easy-to-swallow action, fun, and cleverone-liners that we enjoy…

So, let's see what "TLBS" is about. The story involves privateinvestigator Joe Hallenbeck (Willis) who lives a miserable life. Whenhe discovers that his wife Sarah (Field) is banged by a colleague,things look as they cannot get worse; and yet they can, as thecolleague dies in a suspicious accident, thus handing Hallenbeck thelast job he had before his death, which was the protection of astrip-dancer, Cory (Berry). Cory's boyfriend, an ex-quarterback(Wayans) is unsympathetic to Hallenberg and his task at first, but whenCory gets murdered, he teams up with him to find the killer.

As I explained above, the film is exactly what you would expect: Fastaction, implausible but entertaining plot, and funny one-liners allaround. Performances are satisfactory, especially if judged by the filmgenre. All in all, two fun hours: 6/10.

This is one of my favorite action movies. This is the movie that

made me like Bruce Willis. What made me like this movie is that

it had great acting from everyone, it was action packed, (Not

John Woo, but still great.) And what made this movie was the

writing by Shane Black and Greg Hicks! Their writing was

hilarious and original. I loved the jokes in this. Especially a

scene with a puppet. I think that people should see this movie

and enjoy it as it was

Explosive and funny,this was a pretty entertaining Bruce Willisactioner.Efficent and pacy,it did’nt always make sense,but then this wasmeant to be pure cardboard escapism.

See.

Action flick featuring Bruce Willis as a private eye and Damon Wayans as anex quarterback who team up to go after a corrupt owner who wants gamblinglegalized and will do anything to accomplish itA non stop action flick that holds your attention..a lot of explosions andcar chases and formula stuff invented in the lethal weaponsmovies.It is well done but lacks believability in some parts.. the ending will puta smile on your faceNOT for the young ones though..heavy violence and profanity esp Willis’daughter who spouts curses nonstop.on a scale of one to ten…7

The Last Boy Scout is another great action comedy from the prodigal son ofthe buddy genre Shane Black. Bruce Willis and Damon Wayans have goodchemistry and provoide plenty of one-liners. We all know that Any filmfromthe team of Silver, Black, and Scott is really going to be about actionsequences, however, and the film has them in abundance!The actionsequencesare loud and intesne just the way I like them. I wonder why they never didasequel to this action classic?

Joe Hallenback is a burned-out detective.

Jimmy Dix is an ex-LA S
tallions player. Hallenbeck was hired to protecta stripper named Cory. Dix is Cory's girlfriend.

When Cory is executed during a drive-by shooting, both Hallenbeck andDix try to get to the bottom of the case…

after the vanity project of 'Hudson Hawk' and the drama of 'MortalThoughts', Willis gets back to basics with an action thriller that caneven give 'Lethal Weapon' a run for its money.

Scott has taken the action genre and thrown it around to give theaudience a really good experience in the 'Buddy Buddy thriller' genre(if there is one).

and this movie proves that Shane Black is one of the best Writers outthere.

Willis is fantastic as Hallenback, juggling his broken family life witha murder case.

the main thing with Buddy action films is chemistry, and this film hasit in droves. when Willis and Wayans share screen time it is a joy tobehold as they bounce off each other, and the script sizzles with this.

no expense is spared on the set pieces, and as the film progresses, theset pieces become more over the top and more unbelievable toward theend.

the story is very easy to follow and makes this a classic in the actiongenre.

kudos to Negron, Field, Harris, and Berry for fantastic support.

with some references to Silvers other productions such as 'LethalWeapon' and the vanity Project 'Hudson hawk' this is a dedicated moviethroughout

this could be up there with 'Die Hard' as Willis' best thriller made.

it's just a shame that it did not make as much money as it should of.

one of the best action movies ever made.

read comments (0)

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country

In my opinion it’s the best of the Star Trek films and possibly one of thebest sci-fi films of all time. The movie has it all.

You may think 90’s sci-fi was all about terminators and the like but youneed to see this - it’s CLASSIC stuff.

In my opinion it’s way better than anything Lucas ever came upwith.

Ever watched a movie where you figured out the ending at the beginning? This film is it. Everyone knows the Clingons were the Soviets, and theFederation was the Americans. With the end of the Cold War they decided toend the Trek War, where the walls came tumbling down. The big surprisetwist at the end has no shock value at all! What saves the film isShatner’s fight at the Cligons prison. In the end, worth watching, but moreof the same. 6/10 Will Star Trek ever die like other shows they keepremaking the same idea with new series, and films.

In my mind, this ranks as one of the better Star Trek movies, and certainlyas an appropriate farewell to the original cast, who actually seem muchyounger and more vibrant than they had in Star Trek V (perhaps reflectingthe fact that they were working with a far better script and story.) Thereis some believable evolution that has taken place. Sulu (George Takei), forexample, is now a starship captain in his own right (of the "Excelsior"),which at least was a step toward answering what was - for me - the problemof this crew never really seeming to advance very much beyond their originalmanifestation in the TV series. The primary leads (William Shatner, LeonardNimoy and DeForest Kelley) seem to enjoy reviving their roles as Kirk, Spockand McCoy again.

The story is interesting, as it follows an attempt by the Federation to makepeace with the Klingon Empire. Even up to the present day there has possiblynever been a better Klingon in my opinion than General Chang (ChristopherPlummer), a Shakespeare quoting fierce warrior. The farewell is begun byCaptain Sulu, who says to Captain Kirk (and speaks for all "Star Trek" fans)"nice to see you in action one more time, Captain Kirk." The ending ispredictable enough (Kirk et. al. save the day, as they always manage to do)and the final scenes revolve around orders from Star Fleet Command todecommission the Enterprise, as Kirk ruminates about passing the torch to anew generation - clearly a reference to the cast of the TV series "StarTrek: The Next Generation," and to the fact that future movies would featurethat crew. (One of the things I liked in this movie was the casting ofMichael Dorn - Worf in ST:TNG - as Worf’s grandfather who defends Kirk andMcCoy before the Klingon High Council.)

This is a fond farewell to a familiar group of actors (even though severalof them kept popping up in TNG and later movies.)

6/10

Harve Bennett left the Star Trek movie franchise after his idea of making amovie based on Kirk and Spock’s early days at the Academy. Luckily, itdidn’t come to this. This adventure is filled with a dark conspiracy inwhich factions within Starfleet and the Klingons do not want peace betweenthe two sides. The sets looked better than they did in "Star Trek V," as theplot was a 100% improvement over the trashy fifth Star Trek film. Inaddition, Sulu, who wanted to be on the Excelsior in ST4 (final scene),finally gets it. Kirk gets framed, as the Klingons have more than enoughreasons to punish him for the crime of killing the Chancellor, in which thistime he does not do. Superbly directed by Nick Meyer.

Rating: A-

This is one of the better Trek films out there. The plot and charactersarevery driven, yet mature and sensible. The effects were not as great as Iwould anticipate, however they do not detract from the quality of thefilm.

The correlation between the Cold War and the Federation/Klingon union is,Ithink, accurate, and makes the film more accessable. I also think thisfilmwas a good lead into The Next Generation, even though there is an 80 yeartime seperation. I would like to see some films about the time periodbetween this film and Generations.

Star Trek 6 differs from past Trek films. The movie has an interestingplotand seems to close the book on the original crew and a 25 year saga. Thismovie’s writing is excellent, the actors give one of their finestperformances, and the special effects are great. A mustsee.

"Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country" is a great film, and one of myfavorite movies of all time, because it is so rich in historical references,intricate in plot, and full of dramatic themes in a 2 hour adventure that isa fitting conclusion to the 25 year mission of the original crew of the USSEnterprise.

Growing up primarily as a "Next Generation" Trekker, it was gratifying toknow that this film acknowledged the new generation of Trekkers by pursuingan era of Klingon/Federation peace, which was already an established part of"Next Generation" lore (no pun intended) by the time of this film’s releasein late 1991. The torch was officially passed from the original crew to theNext Generation, and I cannot imagine a film that could have been a better,more fitting departure for the original Enterprise crew.

I have to admit that behind that tight corset, ever-changing haircolor/style, and an unorthodox delivery of speech mannerisms and dialogue(with unexpected pauses at crucial moments), there beats a heart of a greatactor under the girth of William "forever known as Captain Kirk" Shatner! Someone once said that William Shatner’s best performance as James T. Kirkwas in "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock" (1984), but that person waswrong! It was in fact Kirk’s brooding moments from "The UndiscoveredCountry" over the death of his son David (the late Merritt Butrick) from theevents of "The Search of Spock" that leads Kirk to reveal his hatred for theKlingons, and why he does not have desires for the Federation to engage in apeace process with the Klingons. I really liked this aspect of Kirk,because we can clearly see that Kirk is a tragic character who has enduredmany losses in his life time. Besides the loss of his beloved son David,Kirk has lost his brother Sam and his nephew (like Captain Picard in thesnooze-fest "Generations" (1994)) during his original 5 year mission, aswell as losing his tragic love Edith Keeler (Joan Collins) from "The City onthe Edge of Forever" episode. All in all, I was glad that Captain Kirkovercame his biased-hatred for the Klingons, so that in the end, he wouldembrace an era of peace between his old time enemies.

Kudos go to three of the supporting actors of this extraordinarily wonderfulfilm:

1) Leonard Nimoy (Captain Spock): We can definitely see why Spock is themost popular character of the original crew, because he literally keeps theship together, when the crisis starts at the beginning of the film. Hissuperb use of logic, investigative knowledge, and deductive reasoning helpedexonerate his friends (Kirk and McCoy), as well as to expose theconspirators of the assassination attempts. Plus Leonard Nimoy (along withNicholas Meyer) came up with and wrote this brilliant story in timelyfashion at the end of the Cold War.

2) Christopher Plummer (General Chang): "The Sound of Music" (directed byRobert Wise of "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" (1979) fame) star’s greatestperformance to date has to be this film’s villainous turn as theShakespere-spouting Klingon General Chang. Honestly, if Mr. Plummer wasnever sick with the kidney stones, and had a young William Shatner replacehim as King Henry in a stage production of "Henry V" (years back, in the1950’s) who knows what fate would have had in store for the future T.J.Hooker star? Plummer’s presence in "The Undiscovered Country" helps WilliamShatner’s milestone achievement in Hollywood come full circle.
<
br>3) George Takei (Captain Sulu): On a cool factor, I thought it was awesomeand gratifying to see this film framed around the actions and adventures ofCaptain Sulu and his powerful ship, the USS Excelsior.

Also, it is interesting to know that bad guys can co-exist along with thegood guys on the same side of the fence, and are willing to feed theirbrethren to the wolves in order to uphold the status quo.

Along with allusions to Shakespeare, Sherlock Holmes, Adolf Hitler, etc…aswell as its timely allegory to the end of the Cold War, "Star Trek VI"delivers on many levels, and is in my opinion the greatest film to beproduced in its genre.

Along with great mystery, an intricate plot, and surprises at every turn, Ihighly recommend this gem to all the viewers out there, because "This is it! This is the best of all!"

Score: 10/10 (Ten out of Ten)

"Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country" is a great film, and one of myfavorite movies of all time, because it is so rich in historical references,intricate in plot, and full of dramatic themes in a 2 hour adventure that isa fitting conclusion to the 25 year mission of the original crew of the USSEnterprise.

Growing up primarily as a "Next Generation" Trekker, it was gratifying toknow that this film acknowledged the new generation of Trekkers by pursuingan era of Klingon/Federation peace, which was already an established part of"Next Generation" lore (no pun intended) by the time of this film’s releasein late 1991. The torch was officially passed from the original crew to theNext Generation, and I cannot imagine a film that could have been a better,more fitting departure for the original Enterprise crew.

I have to admit that behind that tight corset, ever-changing haircolor/style, and an unorthodox delivery of speech mannerisms and dialogue(with unexpected pauses at crucial moments), there beats a heart of a greatactor under the girth of William "forever known as Captain Kirk" Shatner! Someone once said that William Shatner’s best performance as James T. Kirkwas in "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock" (1984), but that person waswrong! It was in fact Kirk’s brooding moments from "The UndiscoveredCountry" over the death of his son David (the late Merritt Butrick) from theevents of "The Search of Spock" that leads Kirk to reveal his hatred for theKlingons, and why he does not have desires for the Federation to engage in apeace process with the Klingons. I really liked this aspect of Kirk,because we can clearly see that Kirk is a tragic character who has enduredmany losses in his life time. Besides the loss of his beloved son David,Kirk has lost his brother Sam and his nephew (like Captain Picard in thesnooze-fest "Generations" (1994)) during his original 5 year mission, aswell as losing his tragic love Edith Keeler (Joan Collins) from "The City onthe Edge of Forever" episode. All in all, I was glad that Captain Kirkovercame his biased-hatred for the Klingons, so that in the end, he wouldembrace an era of peace between his old time enemies.

Kudos go to three of the supporting actors of this extraordinarily wonderfulfilm:

1) Leonard Nimoy: We can definitely see why Spock is the most popularcharacter of the original crew, because he literally keeps the shiptogether, when the crisis starts at the beginning of the film. His superbuse of logic, investigative knowledge, and deductive reasoning helpedexonerate his friends (Kirk and McCoy), as well as to expose theconspirators of the assassination attempts. Plus Leonard Nimoy (along withNicholas Meyer) came up with and wrote this brilliant story in timelyfashion at the end of the Cold War.

2) Christopher Plummer: "The Sound of Music" (directed by Robert Wise of"Star Trek: The Motion Picture" (1979) fame) star’s greatest performance todate has to be this film’s villainous turn as the Shakespere-spoutingKlingon General Chang. Honestly, if Mr. Plummer was never sick with thekidney stones, and had a young William Shatner replace him as King Henry ina stage production of "Henry V" (years back, in the 1950’s) who knows whatfate would have had in store for the future T.J. Hooker star? Plummer’spresence in "The Undiscovered Country" helps William Shatner’s milestoneachievement in Hollywood come full circle.

3) Kim Cattrall: I was totally surprised by Valeris’s betrayal of Mr. Spockin her opposition of the Federation/Klingon peace initiative. But I reallyliked this twist of events, because when it comes to this film and itssurprising turns, you will certainly expect the unexpected!

On a cool factor, I thought it was awesome and gratifying to see this filmframed around the actions and adventures of Captain Sulu (George Takei) andhis powerful ship, the USS Excelsior.

Also, it is interesting to know that bad guys can co-exist along with thegood guys on the same side of the fence, and are willing to feed theirbrethren to the wolves in order to uphold the status quo.

Along with allusions to Shakespeare, Sherlock Holmes, Adolf Hitler, etc…aswell as its timely allegory to the end of the Cold War, "Star Trek VI"delivers on many levels, and is in my opinion the greatest film to beproduced in its genre.

Along with great mystery, an intricate plot, and surprises at every turn, Ihighly recommend this gem to all the viewers out there, because "This is it! This is the best of all!"

Score: 10/10 (Ten out of Ten)

Even the most vocal detractors of "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country"have to admit that TUC isn’t as "Kirk-centric" as the other films. It was ateam effort. Every individual TOS character contributed to the resolutionof the crisis at hand: Spock started an extensive investigation to exonerateCaptain Kirk and Dr. McCoy; Chekov gathered evidence to prove Kirk andSpock’s innocence; Scotty stumbled upon the anti-grav suits covered in Peptobismol; Sulu informed Kirk of the location of the peace conference; Uhuratold the Big Three that the Bird of Prey has "got to have a tailpipe; McCoyassisted Spock in riggingup a photon torpedo to blowup the Bird of Prey;Kirk was the man who realized that forces beyond his control led to theassassinations, learned to put aside his hatred, exposed the conspirators (with the help of his 6 friends…2 in real life), and made sure the peaceprocess would continue.

I’ll tell you this much about the effect of TUC in the lives of its fans.It helped them better understand the historical relevance of the Cold War;appreciate cinematic works of David Lean ("The Bridge on the River Kwai,""Lawrence of Arabia"); allowed them to readup on the works of WilliamShakespeare ("Hamlet," "Henry V"); know the real meaning behind "Only Nixoncould go to China,"; and that Sherlock Holmes definitely wasn’t an ancestorof Mister Spock.

That is why, I don’t regret having had to purchase this film 4-times in mylife…soon to be 5 (defective VHS —; replacement VHS —; widescreenVHS —; a VHS copy on an overseas vacation —; and to be released SpecialEdition DVD). Yeah, you could say I’m a big fan.:)

It even leads directly into the first episode of Sex in the City! Gofigure.

Honestly, though I love almost all of the Trek feature films, even thelesser ones, Undiscovered Country does one thing that is tough to do withaslightly campy Sci Fci flick. Its suspenseful. Most of the other trekfilms, though good, are not really the type of movie that make you gripyourseat. It makes you feel some emotion. Its also intelligently written andavoids egregious story mistakes.

By the way, I beg for more Star Trek movies. Nemesis was not the way togodown. LET FRAKES DIRECT!!!!

read comments (0)

Shadows and Fog

What's right? The cinematography, the music, the casting that allowsscreen familiars to play against type, the sheer value for money thatWoody Allen usually delivers, and the recreation of style that works inits own right. There are plenty of good, if not great, lines.

What's wrong? Mainly Woody Allen's one-note performance, and the waythat all the actors in (presumably semi-improvised) scenes with himstart to mimic that unconvincing stuttering whine - especially MiaFarrow. The way that when you lose engagement with the main characterafter ten minutes you just feel you're watching a meticulous pasticherather than a film that stands by itself.

The problem is Woody Allen playing Kleinmann. He overacts like he'snever overacted before, among seasoned thespians doing it right (exceptMadge, of course, when she was the queen of stunt castings. God, thewoman makes Liz Hurley look like Bette Davis). Kleinmann ('little man'- we get it, already; the whole film's a metaphor for life) is neitherlikable nor unlikeable, and we don't share his mystification, we justthink "no wonder nobody told him what's going on - he's an annoyingidiot". It's as though a bit player got hold of the script and alteredit to give himself the starring role. The more I remember, the moreannoyed I get with Allen for hijacking his own movie with such aself-indulgent performance. Never forget this man named a childSatchel. Mind you, I suppose the Soon Yi was just about to hit the fan.

Parts of it work beautifully, and they're mostly the parts withoutKleinmann.

How can an expert film maker like Woody Allen screw up a black andwhite film about a town's struggles with a serial killer? Here is how.

There is not so much of a plot as there is a series of weak vignettes.Allen is a nebbish bookkeeper who is recruited by a band of men to helpthem catch a mad strangler who is terrorizing an unnamed but seeminglyEuropean city. The problem is, and the only laughs come from, the factthat Allen is not told what his role is in the plan, and he wandersaround for the rest of the film trying to find his place in thecapture.

Mia Farrow is a sword swallower from the local traveling circus wholeaves boyfriend John Malkovich and ends up in a brothel sleeping withJohn Cusack. She later meets up with Allen, and they stroll around thestreets as Allen is eventually suspected of the growing numbers ofmurders. He frequently runs into people from his life, and they allhave little scenes with him, before the final stupid capture of thekiller back at the circus, which does not go as planned.

I would have given this film a one except for two things: the runninggag involving Allen's role in the vigilante plot, and Carlo DiPalma'scinematography. The film is beautiful black and white, with great setdesign, and every shot is a photograph. This will remind you of thoseold films from the twenties and thirties, where the bizarre sets andart direction put you in a world you have never experienced before.

Allen gives himself the more funnier lines. The rest of his cast talkslike they just stepped out of one of his modern day New York films.Immediately, you dislike Farrow and her constant whining.

Ditto for Cusack, who is wasted as the john who thought he found truelove. On top of all of this, Allen tries to tackle deep issues like theexistence of God and the meaning of life, but he does it in such asurface way, you care about the answers as much as you care about thecharacters- zilch. An anal retentive viewing of this might glean deepermeaning, but who wants to sit through this again and again? Instead,you just sit watching this and spotting the stars, and there are plentyof them.

A special note about Madonna. The rest of the cast overacts a littleduring this, maybe to make the Woodman happy as a director.

However, Madonna, in her brief role as the woman who comes betweenMalkovich and Farrow, delivers her lines so flatly, I thought she mightbe talking in her sleep. Please, Hollywood, city of dreams and full ofpeople who think they know what we want, stop putting this woman infilms and making us suffer through her "acting." I am a fan of a few ofAllen's films, his best two are "Manhattan" and "Radio Days," but thisindulgent failure just serves as an example of why so many people outthere just cannot stand him anymore. I cannot recommend this filmunless you watch it for the aesthetic beauty, with the sound down.

This is rated (PG13) for some physical violence, some profanity, andsexual references.

Writer-director-star Woody Allen sends up German Expressionism, andfilmmakers like Fritz Lang, for a decidedly unfunny paranoia comedyabout a schnook in a small village who is fingered for a rash ofkillings. Unfortunately, film plays more like a retread of MartinScorsese' "After Hours" (right down to the gimmick of having big-namestars in cameo roles), filtered through Kafka and Woody Allen's ownbrand of non-sensibility. This gloomy hamlet milquetoast sets out tocatch the real culprit and runs into a number of eccentric characters,few of whom have been really thought out by the writer. Madonna putsoff some heat as a circus performer, but a prostitute ensemblefeaturing Kathy Bates, Lily Tomlin and Jodie Foster falls flat. As anactor, Allen is affable as usual (he's a mild neurotic, talkative yetflexible and soft), but John Malkovich, Kate Nelligan, and Mia Farroware sadly lost in the shuffle. Even the b&w photography seems staid. **from ****

Is there a longer version of this somewhere? 80 or so minutes of WoodyAllen and/or Mia Farrow encountering one star after another, some withone line, some with half a line. What is this? A good idea (combiningthe worlds of Woody Allen, Fritz Lang and Kurt Weill) with stunningphotography and excellent art direction. However, like an overwroughtstudent film, it has no plot or intrigue or humor to sustain even it'sbrief length. It has a lot of fog! It's almost unfair to even criticizethe "supporting" cast as they appear so briefly…John Malkovich andMadonna pop up as part of a traveling circus, Lily Tomlin, Kathy Bates,and Jodie Foster appear as prostitutes (no type-casting there!), JohnCusack is one of their johns. Julie Kavner, Fred Gwynne, Kate Nelliganand a few others are in there somewhere as well. Oddly, the film gets abit of a jolt when Donald Pleasance shows up a coroner.

This came out about the time of the Woody/Soon-Yi scandal and it shows. Ihesitate to call this Woody’s worst because it is in a toss up withCelebrity and Curse of Jade Scorpion, but this is just woeful, dour andconfused. Yes, I think this wins as his worst.

The title describes us perfectly the setting. As far as the plot isconcerned, there’s to say that Allen portrays a small community scaredby a terrible murder, and the personal growth and change of twocharacters played by Malkovich and Farrow: they understand how deep istheir love while the community has to deal with the killer. Allen playsan unbearable, shy character that upsets the watchers. Surely the storyof these two lovers is fascinating, but it isn’t enough to make of thismovie a good one. Even the excellent appearances of a lot of starsincluding the Academy Awards fresh winner Jodie Foster ( who say onlytwo words ), Kate Bathes and Madonna seem to be meaningless.

Set at unspecified time at time, in an unspecified year and in anunspecified European city, 'Shadows and Fog' has an interesting air toit. Late night, most people are asleep, yet some wander the streets.There is a serial killer on the loose, and there is much paranoia overit. Most of the wanderers are members of rival vigilante factions, eachwith different plots to catch the killer and each full of wildaccusations. Kleinman, played by Woody Allen, is stuck in t
he midst ofit, being told that he has a role to play in a vigilante movement, butnot being told what role exactly.

Allen uses a variety of non-original music tracks effectively, formoments such as when the killer first strikes and when the accusationsare building up with Kleinman in the centre of it all. Thecinematography by Carlo Di Palma is superb: how the camera moves aroundto see the first murder being committed, the angles used when Farrowstarts to get drunk and Cusack starts to court her, the complete 360degree shots used when discussing philosophy at the table in thebrothel, and so forth. The music and camera-work are the film's twostrongest points.

Some have flawed 'Shadows and Fog' for having little plot, however thethemes of the film are more important here than any definite storyline.It is a multi-themed film, with the themes of paranoia, madness andfear evident from the events we are shown, as well as ideas in terms ofsexuality presented by what the characters discuss. Two points raisedby the characters in their sexuality discussion are that men will riskmurder for sex and that being tied up is arousing and more comfortablethan complete freedom is - which are both interesting in light of theevents of the film.

While it is fascinating to watch these sleep deprived, fearfulcharacters wander the dark streets, and listen to their philosophies onall different things in life, the film does however fall into a trap ofjust flinging philosophy around. The ideas are interesting, but attimes they seem like a flimsy exercise to add something meaningful tothe characters meandering around the place. The film's tone is also abit all over the place, as Allen's style of comedy jars with his styleof atmosphere. Still, it is a fascinating film with great visuals andaudio, and it is probably one of Allen's strongest post-1980s films.

I have seen Annie Hall and thought it was really good, and this issecond film I have seen from the great actor/director/writer. Basicallywoken up in the night by his neighbours as a vigilante group, Kleinman(Woody Allen) is wanted to help track down a strangler who has beenkilling people all over town. The town is pretty deserted as it isreally late at night, and the vigilante group has disappeared.Meanwhile, Irmy (Mia Farrow) has walked away from her career at thecircus in town, and her Clown boyfriend, Paul (John Malkovich).Eventually, after going to a brothel, and sleeping with Student Jack(John Cusack) for $700, she meets Kleinman, and is almost the onlyperson that he can rely on or get some sort of help from. Also starringMadonna as Marie, Lilo & Stitch's David Ogden Stiers as Hacker, MichaelKirby as Killer, Independence Day's James Rebhorn as Vigilante, DonaldPleasence as Doctor, Jodie Foster as Prostitute, Kathy Bates asProstitute, The River Wild's John C. Reilly as Cop at Police Station,Deep Impact's Kurtwood Smith as Vogel's Follower, William H. Macy asCop with Spiro, The Simpsons' Julie Kavner as Alma and Toy Story'sWallace Shawn as Simon Carr. Some pretty funny moments, but it's alwaysthe nerd-like, wining voice and "I, I, I" from Allen that is thehighlight. Worth watching!

This is an absolutely greatly entertaining mystery comedy. One ofWoody's finest efforts for humor, and a complete aesthetic mixture ofall that goes into great film-making. The performances are uniformlyfantastic from one of the strongest ensemble cast I have ever seen onthe screen. The cinematography and graphic night-time-fogged black andwhite imagery are nearly translucent and wonderfully mixed in shadesthat re-enforce the plot and set. All of this together with anunbelievable musical score, a fast paced beautifully written script,genius-brilliant camera work, and Woody's best ever direction, in mybook. The cast. . . .how could anything go wrong? Allen, Mia Farrow,John Malkovich (who fits well as"the clown"), John Cusack (a greatperformance as student Jack), Lily Tomlin, Jodie Foster, Kathy Bates,Donald Pleasence, Madonna (steamy and perfect), Julie Kavner (pre-MargeMarge) and on and on and on, many of whom have gone on to "iconic starstatus" since this film, and many of whom have appeared in many ofAllen's ensembles. The picture may be something of a stylizedart-piece, and for some film watchers will fail to reach them, sincesome film watchers, in general, tend to be unreachable media slaves ofthe corporate world, and therefor. . .make for a rather lame model.But, and that said, anyone with half a sense of humor and an ability toappreciate great art comedy will love this picture.

This is far from a typical Woody Allen film. It's shot in black andwhite and it all takes place in one night; a night in which a group ofcitizens are searching for a serial killer. The streets of the namelesscity in which it takes place evoke Fritz Lang's M and GermanExpressionism. Allen plays the Kafkaesque Kleinman; a man who is notsure what's going on but is desperate to be a part of it.

The film is primarily about the illusory nature of society. During theday, it seems that human societies are completely in control. In thenight, this illusion cannot hold up. The leaders of society (priests,the chief of police, Kleinman's boss) are shown to be power abusingvillains with no redeemable qualities. Those marginalized by societyare really the best people; the whores and the circus folk are the onlyrelatable characters other than Kleinman.

In spite of all this, Kleinman clings to the illusion of the safetysociety seems to offer. He is sure that those in charge have a plan; hejust needs to find his place in it to help it work. Even when he istold that the group of citizens has split into several rival groups andone of the leaders has been murdered by another he is unable tounderstand that the power of the society represented by the group isimaginary.

Although the end of the film may seem abrupt and saccharine at first,on further reflection it is anything but. Kleinman is confronted by themurderer in the circus camp and he seemingly manages to capture thekiller with the help of a magician. Following this, the circus peoplecome to collect him only to find he has disappeared. Someone has beendeceived, but who? This is quite an ambiguous ending in spite of itsseeming straightforwardness. All is not what it seems.

read comments (0)

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves

I remember quite a bit about the Walt Disney cartoon, and when I heardabout this live action version about the beginning of Robin Hood, Iwanted to see it quite desperately. Basically Robin of Locksley (KevinCostner) started out as some kind of hopeful guy who wanted to help hislocal town of Nottingham with his friend Azeem (Morgan Freeman). Helater sets up the Merry Men team, including Christian Slater as WillScarlett, Michael McShane as Friar Tuck and Nick Brimble as LittleJohn. But he also meets his beautiful love interest, Marian Dubois(Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio). The only person trying to stop Robinfrom stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is the really,really mean Sheriff of Nottingham (Alan Rickman). Also starring BrianBlessed as Lord Locksley and a very brief Sir Sean Connery as KingRichard. What most people remember about this film more though is the16 week number one single, Bryan Adams' "(Everything I Do) I Do It forYou", which was number 30 on The 100 Greatest Number One Singles, butalso number 14 on The 100 Worst Pop Records, why? Very good!

This movie was not a tasteful portrayal of the legend of Robin Hood. Asa little girl, I went to Nottingham, visited Sherwood Forest and fellin love with the legend of Robin Hood while standing in the Major Oak.Robin Hood (Kevin Costner) and Wil Scarlett (Christian Slater) whetherintentional or not do not even have English accents but everyone elsedoes. The best actors in the movie were Little John (Nick Brimble),King Richard (Sean Connery), and for a wonderful taste of comedy thereis Much the Miller's son (Jack Wild) in a brief scene. I wish the moviehad more brilliant shining moments like that one because this movie wastoo dark and too violent. It needed more light and fun scenes betweenthe merry men. It focused too much on Robin and Marion and not enoughon the the bond between the Merry Men.

Director Kevin Reynolds’ version of "Robin Hood" is the best in my mind bythe smallest of margins over a couple of others. Kevin Costner is super inthe titled role and Alan Rickman steals every scene as the crazed Sheriff ofNotingham. Good supporting turns by Christian Slater, Morgan Freeman andMary Elizabeth Mastrantonio just add to the adequate screenplay. Highproduction values and some really exciting sequences are the things that setthis one apart from lesser versions. 4 stars out of 5.

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves i think is a fantastic movie. Really i thinkthis should have been in the top 250 movies the best ones of all time. Wellmaybe one day they this will be in the top 250 best movies. The song"Everything i do (I do it for you) sung by Bryan Adams was made in 1991 andwas #1 in the uk for 16 weeks. That is the longest running amount of weeksUk have had in history.

I am looking for a leather jacket exactly like the one Robin Hood wearsin this movie. Can anyone help??? It would be most appreciated. I havetried all the usual sites and have come up with nothing. Having onecustom made to the specs is also possible.I would rather have an exactreplica or even the very jacket from the movie which would befantastic. Cost of course is always a consideration, but is not thedeciding factor. I am from the Northwest part of Ohio, so a trip forfitting would have to be considered. If anyone can be of help , I wouldsurely be grateful. I have never seen another jacket like it, in shopsor even in films.

i would’ve given this movie 10 out of 10 but they cut the funniestmoment out the film altogether. it was when the sheriff was gettingmarried to marian and he gets her on the floor and gets he’s legsbetween hers and spreads them wide. it was side splittingly funny. icould understand why they cut it if marian showed off her glory buteverything was covered up by her long dress that was down to herankles. i thought those little touches made the film and with thisextended version i hoped it would be restored because it wasn’t in thevideo on DVD I’ve got. i only saw it at the pictures. can anyoneexplain why it was cut

This is such a great movie. I thought it was really great. This is thebest of all the hundreds of films about the same character (Robin Hood)but this one is better than that because it has a new spin that willmake you like it even more.

The story is about a prince who returns home to find his kingdom stolenby the evil sheriff of Nottinghams and BOY IS HE NOT HAPPY! He startson a rampage to reclaim his throne and win his girl back (who has beenput in a prison by an old witch with one blue eye and one eye notthere). He is helped along the way by a young priest and a man who isan Arab (which is where the film begins).

As soon as it was over and the credits had finished moving up thescreen all the way to the top I rewound the tape and watched it againabout a week later and enjoyed it even more. That was when I was ayounger man but it's even better now.It's like drinking a milkshake ofyour favourite flavour (whatever your favourite flavour for thosemilkshakes is) and it cannot be beaten as a film. You will like it.

It’s not Errol Flynn, but it’s still entertaining and Costnerplays the part of the Sherwood Forest savior well, while Rickman is scenestealing as a snarling Sheriff of Nottingham.

Why is Morgan freeman in this? Why is Costner in this, he sounds like JohnWyane. The romance and the story drags with these 2 actors. ChristanSlater in this you got to be joking! Worst casting ever. My sister tellsme she loves this film, and I bought it for her, and I do not think she everwatched it more than once. Forget this film. 3/10

ROBIN HOOD: PRINCE OF THIEVES (1991) **1/2 Kevin Costner, MaryElizabeth Mastrantonio, Morgan Freeman, Alan Rickman, Christian Slater.Lackluster update of the classic tale of Robin of Loxley who formed aband of vigilantes to aid the suffering hamlet of Sherwood Forest fromthe vile monarchy of King John and the Sheriff of Nottingham (Rickman,who steals the show). Sean Connery has a cameo.

read comments (0)

Ricochet

Denzel Washington is a prosperous, respected, happily married DA. JohnLithgow is a prisoner whom Washington sent up the river years ago.Lithgow and a friend escape, murdering everyone in their path. Lithgowfakes his own death. Everyone now believes him to be a harmless corpse,but ha ha, he moves around lithely in his ghostly world (where does heget his money?) and devotes himself to making Washington's lifemiserable. Not KILLING Washington, but ruining his life forever, a laRobert Mitchum and Gregory Peck in "Cape Fear," only worse.

His frame-up of Washington is really devilishly skillful. He conks theunsuspecting DA on the head, take him to an empty swimming pool at anempty club, drugs him into near insensibility, and videotapes himhaving sex with some bimbo who, as it later turns out, is also givinghim the clap.

Washington finally wakes up to find himself in rags amongst a communityof homeless people. WELL! Nobody believes his story of course. Theykeep telling him things like, "Denzel — John Lithgow is dead." Bloodwork reveals both cocaine and heroin in his system of course. Theinvestigating authorities also find a collection of planted kiddie pornin his possession. And the video tape of his sitting on a bed whilesome white gal does a cowboy on him turns up in the hands of theauthorities too, with dialog altered so that Washington, instead ofbeing half dead from drugs, appears to be saying, "You're going to doexactly what I tell you," and the babe answers, "Anything you say,dumpling," or something like that. The tape turns his wife off. Thedose of clap doesn't help either.

You see, the problem is that no one believes him — not his bosses, nothis family, nobody except his closest friend at the office, a short andpasty white guy who incarnates the concept of "impotence." Speaking ofthat, how did that hooker manage to give the sleeping drugged-outWashington a dose? Well, never mind. When Washington takes the legalauthorities to the club with the empty swimming pool, he finds himselfin one of those scenes where things have been changed around so thatthey seem perfectly normal. His colleagues make snotty remarks. Thescene might have been lifted from a dozen other movies, maybe mostfamously "North by Northwest." Lithgow shoots the best friend andthrows the pistol to Washington, who catches it in his bare hands sohis fingerprints are all over it. All of this shows up in the mostsensationalized fashion in the press. After the murder of his friend,Washington is suspended, though here, as elsewhere, the plot has a bitof a hole in it since nobody could possibly come up with a motive forWashington's killing the only friend he has.

Washington, harassed and hated by the law, driven half nuts by Lithgow,turns to the homies in the neighborhood where he grew up. They takecare of his family and help him lure Lithgow to the Watts Towers wherethe dramatic finale takes place with the expectable dramatic results.

Here's another example of a stupid plot device. Just before theconfrontation at the Towers, Washington has drawn all the media and thecops to a block where he is standing on the roof, doing nutty thingslike putting on makeup for the cameras, and threatening to blow himselfup. All this appears on live TV and Lithgow, aghast at the prospect oflosing the mouse he's been toying with, shows up at the scene. Someonetaps him on the shoulder and tells him, "Mister Blake? Phone call foryou." Lithgow seems puzzled at being recognized but goes to the phoneanyway, where an anonymous caller tells him to go to the Watts Towers,without giving him any reason to do so. Lithgow, who has shown allsorts of brains until now, does exactly as he's asked. The holes?Lithgow would never have shown up at the scene in the first place. Howcould he possibly stop Washington from jumping off a fourteen-storybuilding? Why would he risk revealing his existence in front of a hordeof police and frenetic media? Two — instead of answering the phone,anyone with brains would deny being the dead Mr. Blake and walk away.Three — follow directions and go to the Watts Towers? Why? There isplenty of action for action fans. Cars do stunts. People getelectrocuted and shot. Buildings explode. People live in a Biblicalworld of pure good and pure evil. If that's what you're looking foryou'll find it here.

Washington should never have put himself into this movie though. He's adecent actor but absolutely NOBODY could bring off the several scenesin which he tries to explain the nature of the frame and instead soundslike a raving lunatic, stuttering out gibberish worthy of aschizophrenic's word salad. It's already been done to death. (WatchJack Lemon try to explain why he's holding the nuclear power plant atgunpoint, while SWAT is banging on the locked door in "The ChinaSyndrome".) There's another element that some might find unsettlingtoo. In the end, you can only trust your own people. There are fourclasses of white people. The purely evil Lithgow, the dutiful but dumblegal colleagues who don't like him from the beginning, the good friendwho is only there to be killed, and a collection of Nazi wannabees andthe Aryan Brotherhood in prison.

The homies we meet are cynical but they believe Washington. They arestreet people but they protect his family, help him carry out his scam,prevent the police from ruining the revelatory climax, and they'reclever as hell at what they do.

Want to see somebody get an electric shock atop the Watts Towers? Watchthis.

Don’t get me wrong, I like Denzel Washington. I like John Lithgow. Ijust don’t like them together in this movie! Too many implausiblesituations for me to believe anything like these events could actuallyhappen in real life even though yea, I know, it’s ONLY a movie. No realcharacter development, just a lot of action, sex, violence. And we’resupposed to believe Denzel, as the cop, paid his way through lawschool?? One scene towards the end was right out of "White Heat". I’msure they weren’t paying homage to that excellent James Cagney movie,the director probably just ran out of ideas. Watch once if you feel theneed and forget about it………or watch Philadelphia instead.

This is just one of those average Die Hard spin offs that in most casesI try to avoid. John Lithgow is pretty convincing as a stark raving madinmate, but to many aspects of this movie fall flat on its face. Someof this stuff is just to far fetched for me to buy into. Do men inprison really dress themselves up in ghetto armor and masquerade aroundthe lunch hall with swords and battle to the death? Do juries reallybuy into bashing the defense attorney personally, and do they allow DAsto jump around the courtroom waving his hands in the air like a madmanand screaming like a girl? Is it possible to goto a parole hearing,tell a man on the parole board you are going to have sex with his wifeand his daughter AND HIS DOG, and then have 3 prisoners just magicallybust up in there with power drills and electric saws (with no plug-inaround) and kill everybody, then make an escape on a van filled withbooks for sale? I mean cmon when do you want me to stop? I am able tosuspend disbelief for a film in many cases, but then there is this fineline between entertaining and just plain ridiculous. The only reasonthis movie gets a 4 is because the acting was exceptional. Btw, drug meup on heroin and cocaine and I bet you still can’t convince me to havesex with someone I don’t want to, even if she is a white hooker withCLAP. 4/10

I’m only reviewing this because I suspect it’s the worst action-thrillerI’ve ever seen. The plot is idiotic; Lithgow’s villain uses tactics thatcould only work if he knows exactly how his target will react, and if thelatter uses absolutely no strategic thought. As is typical of the genre,all of the hero’s problems are instantly erased by a final battle. Bu
tthispiece of junk goes one step further, having a reporter announce thatobviously, the mere presence of the villain clears everything up.Puh-leeze.

The characters have absolutely no depth, the good guy too good, the badguys too bad, nothing to make them anything more than cartoon characters,and every performance was overacted.

I rented this with a group of people and I think it cost us about 50 centsapiece.. and I still wanted my money back.

Horrible

This movie gets worse with every passing minute. I was really excitedto see John Lithgow playing a villain, and some guy named Denzel was init too. The main problem with this film is that it tries too hard toestablish Denzel as good and Lithgow as evil, and both end up as simplyunlikeable characters.

Lithgow is so evil that there's nothing to sympathize with. He killswithout remorse, gets in with the Aryan brotherhood, and whilediabolical, he isn't even that smart. His plots are simplistic, andonly work because everyone else is pretty dense too.

Washington is so good that there's nothing to sympathize with. His onlyflaw is a righteous cockiness, which he earns by having never doneanything wrong in his life. Normally, when we see this sort ofcharacter in a movie, at some point he has to make a choice between thelesser of two evils and do something commonly perceived as "wrong." Notthe case here. Any "wrong" he does is beyond his control.

As for the ending, you've seen it a million times in different movies.So don't hold your breath.

Russel Mulcahy’s Ricochet is a stylisticjourney thru one man’s worst nightmares.This movie has a ton of style and somevery good performances. DenzelWashington’s performance is very well doneand Ice-T has some very nice moments aswell. This movie belongs, however, to JohnLithgow. Lithgow is the kind of actor thatcan do anything. He is very intimidatingin this movie, even if more than once hegoes over the top. The cinematography byPeter Levy is fantastic and AlanSilvestri’s score has its moments. Themovie’s weakness is the story. It is justa typical revenge picture and the climaxseems lifted from a horror picture. Thereis a lot of talent in this movie but thescript by Steven E. de Souza is very weak.I would say check it out for theperformances, especially Lithgow, andcinematography, but don’t expect to getknocked out by originality cause this filmdoesn’t have it.

Impressive plot and story for a suspense-thriller, butpoorlyexecuted, mostly by Washington, who goes beyond the annalsofoveracting to play egotistical Nicholas Styles, once apolicemanwho made it big by putting away hit man Blake, played by John Lithgow.Lithgow addshis usual menace to these kinds of roles and remains the most excitingperformer in the whole picture.

The idea of exacting revenge through destroying the other’s world isfascinating, but this movie just doesn’t pull it off. It’s not the cast’sfault, because Washington and Lithgow make the best of what they’re given.The movie also avoids the racial issues that most certainly would comeintoplay, and be played up by the media, if this was the real world. See thismovie only if you want to see Lithgow with a scowl as opposed to his "3rdRock" demeanor.

A lot more could have been gained from this movie without resorting tocrassand over the top scenes, particularly those in the prison. Whoeverdesignedthe escape needs their head read? Talk about fanciful! > Somehow the plot just does not come through, although the actorstry to pull it together with some good acting, particularly Lithgow andWashington. Leave this one on the shelf.

read comments (0)

Jungle Fever

Ok, any true fan of Spike Lee *or* Sam Jackson would know Sam was inLee’s"School Daze", which came several years before Jungle Fever.

Now that we’ve cleared that up….

GREAT movie. A little hard to take at times, and I’m also a littleconfusedabout the subplots. But well worth watching again andagain.

Jungle Fever is a film about interacial dating, black romance, fathers&sonsand many other deep issues. The film hit home for me because as a black manwho has dated so many white girls. It opened my eyes to a lot of things. Irealized that love sees no color and iif you love someone color doesn’tmatter. Samuel L.Jackson desevered a Oscar Nod for his role as Gator thecrack head. Spike delivers once again.

The movie Jungle fever is pretty good, however I dont think its a goodmirror on todays sociaty or even the 90’s.

I DONT like the term "interracial dating" or talk about diffrent races.Allthat talk belongs back in the days of slavery. A person is of the raceHUMANno matter what his colour is! Because of USA’s awfull history, theBlack/white issues have always been strong and complex. But its 2004! Thatpeople are still talking about races is sad. There is only one race,HUMAN.

There is A LOT of man and womans who have diffrent colour who are togetherand they have never felt even 1% of the problems that are shown in themoviejungle fever.

I think some people are MAKING it a big issue. For gods sake we are allthesame!

I believe that Danny Aiello had a brief part in this film. He played ina scene where the father of the main supporting actress, was outragedat the fact that his daughter was in love with a black man. She endedup leaving the house in tears from an emotional and explosivefather-daughter conflict.

Danny was also featured, but in a major role, in another one of Spike’sfilms, "Do the right thing." I can see why Spike picked Danny as he isa very talented actor.

This film was another piece of excellent work by Spike Lee.

I just recently rented JUNGLE FEVER out of curiosity because I’ve seenalmost all of Spike’s films except this one. I have to say that I wasextremely impressed at how real this movie is.If another director was to tackle this premise they would probably sticktothe central relationship and little else. Yet Spike elaborates on manyotherrelationships outside the central one, including family, friends, andcommunity. There are so many complex plot levels at play that will keepyouwatching like it’s a soap opera. A soap opera that is a heart-bruisingurbandrama. Sometimes Spike lets his political & social agendas get the best ofhim, but here he keeps them restrained. This way you get a better look atboth sides of the coin and the result is reality at its best(and sometimesworst!). Wesley Snipes and Annabella Sciora give great performances as thedoomed lovers. But the most credit I think is due to Samuel L. Jackson &Halle Berry for turning in shocking performances as two crack-addicts.Ultimately the film ends on an idealized note that might not be true tolife, yet is still satisfying. The film is only for open-minded viewersyetsome of you narrow-minded folk are well represented in the film.Basically,for those of you who enjoy dark, reality dramas: you won’t want to missit.And if you enjoy it, I also recommend HE GOT GAME & SUMMER OF SAM aswell.

I was tired of Samuel L. Jackson, I mean he´s in almost all the newHollywood action/war films.But I was really impressed by his acting in thisfilm.Even if the direction by Lee and the music by Stevie Wonder is great Ithink I like it mostly because of the acting.Stars like:

Wesley Snipes,Samuel L. Jackson,John Turturro, Ossie Davis,Ruby Dee andevenAnthony Quinn in a small role.4/5

A movie highly praised by critics when it was launched in 1991, I think that"Jungle Fever" is a correct movie that alternates qualities andfaults.

As far as the assets are concerned well you can quote two main qualities.From one hand, the directing which is of a perfect quality and it seems thatSpike Lee has a preference for travelings because it is this device that heuses the most to shoot his movie. On another hand, a dazzling performancefrom all the actors with a special mention to John Turturro and AnthonyQuinn, even if both have only minor roles.

But there are also faults in Lee’s opus and it resides in the script. Atfirst sight, we deal with a trite love affair between a man (Wesley Snipes)and his secretary (Annabella Sciorra) (how many times have we seen thissituation in movies?). But there’s a little detail that makes all thedifference: the secretary is white and the man is black. Due to a differentcolor of skin, a lot of people around them view this love in an unfavorablelight. By writing such a story, Spike Lee obviously wanted to broach anddenounce racism, a topic that has often been at the core of his movies, as"Do the right thing" (1989) testifies. With "Jungle Fever", we can say thathe reached his goal but he even went over the top. Indeed, the topic ofracism is present in too many sequences and it gives an impression ofoverloading. Due to this, it is hard for Spike Lee to sustain theinterest.

Moreover, Lee’s intention wasn’t only to denounce racism, but alsoprejudice, drug, intolerance. But these 2 last things haven’t really got acommon point with the plot. As a consequence, the movie includes a quiteimportant number of useless digressions.

In the long run, "Jungle Fever" is a very talkative and demonstrative movieand in which a lot of characters are stereotyped. Nevertheless, it remains abrave movie from a brave director.

I have always been a fan of Spike Lee ever I seen his best film to date, DoThe Right Thing. So I had to see this the main reason being was to seeSamuel L Jackson’s performance as the crackhead Gator. By far this is thebest thing about the film. Although the film features a great cast of Lee’sregulars and a realistic storyline, Jackson’s performance is exceptional.This is the film that started his career so if you are a Sam Jackson fan andyou haven’t seen it you are missing his best performance since Pulp Fiction.Even though the film is a little too long watch it because it is a greatfilm about race toned down with some comedic moments. Watch out for HalleBerry’s debut playing the drug addict Vivian.

I am a big Spike Lee fan and I like almost all the movies that he does. Idon’t care for what people have to say about him being a racist orwhatever,because those things don’tmatter to me. I wish people would get past thatstuff and when they watch his movies just take them for what they areinstead of bringing what his outside feelings are into his films becausehedoes make some really great movies. I love Jungle Fever and it is one ofmyfavorites next to School Days, and Bamboozled. I think this movie reallyspeaks to the way people feel on this subject. It makes you aware thatwether you condone it or not that there is a lot more to this subject thanjust being a Black/White issue. I think that the Ossie Davis’s speech atthedinner table was excellent and was what really made me want to keep comingback to this movie and watch it again and again. I also, think that scenewhere all the women were togther in Snipes wifes house talking about whatthey think of interracial dating was a powerful scene because it gavelightall sides and hit almost every view.

The only troubling thing about this movie to me was how Snipes characterwasso willing to jepoardize his family for some white woman and go throughallof what he went trough knowing that it could never be anything more thanwhat it was because he made it clear when she told the cops that he washerboyfriend that he never wanted that to get out. And maybe it’s because Iamnot a man where I can’t see how someone i
n their right mind would gothroughall of that for some curiosity. However, but in being a woman I can’tunderstand why she took him back so easily after he had gotten all of thatout of his system. I mean he threw away their family for an affair and shetakes him back because he says he is done with it. I would have made thatman suffer.

also like the whole story of Gator and the family as well. I thought thatthis made a great contrast to the interracial thing by addressing muchbigger problems that are also going on in the world. The part when thefather shoots Gator rang a lot like what had happened between Marvin Gayeand his father with his whole drug problem. The ending of this movie wentgreat with the normal Spike Lee end by giving us all a wake up call andtelling us that these things must stop. I know that some people areconfusedas to what he was trying to say and that was simply that we need to helpgetrid of this drug problem. That is also, what he was trying to tell hisdaughter when we were first introduced to Halle Berry’s character is thatweneed to end this and it starts with our youth and educating them. I thinkthis movie is great and gives great insight to how and why people feel theway they do about interracial dating. Plus, it also gives you insight toothers views and why they also feel the way they do. Spike makes no oneopinion better than the other in this movie you have to decide foryourselfand that is why I like Spike. He gives you all sides and lets you takeyourown stance! Go see this movie!

Jungle Fever is too highly stylized, stereotyped, and comes across asessentially dishonest. Wesley Snipes was wrong for the lead and there wasnochemistry between him and Annabella Sciorra. Even though there’s plenty oftalent in this movie, it’s mostly wasted because the parts are reduced tolittle more than decorative cameos. Also, instead of simply showing racismfor the ugly and stupid thing it is, Spike Lee chooses to wave it aroundlike a flag in a most whining and irritating manner. I made it throughmostof the film but I couldn’t quite finish it, and that, for me, rarelyhappens.

read comments (0)

Kafka

How to write a screenplay called "Kafka"

1. Read a little bit of Kafka (not too much - make sure you don’t understandor appreciate him)

2. Steal some characters and ideas from his stories to contrive a screenplayaround them

3. Title the screenplay "Kafka". Sounds good doesn’t it

4. Okay, now forget about the real Kafka. Keep the title and keep hischaracters and ideas but do nothing with them. Make sure the whole point ofFranz Kafka’s stories is COMPLETELY LOST.

5. Now for the tricky bit. Write the WORST SCREENPLAY EVER. Make sure it isbanal and pointless. This will guarantee that the film is terrible in theextreme. Even if they cast an excellent actor like Jeremy Irons in the titlerole he will not be able to save the film from utter disgrace.

Now NEVER go near Franz Kafka’s work again. Or screenplays.Please.

Kafka was an extremely intriguing movie, the kind that makes you think aboutwhat goes on behind closed doors.

Interesting filming style from Sodorburgh stilldoesn’t make this a good film. It suffers greatlyfrom pacing and precision. The story takes a whilegetting into also and when you do get deeper in, then you must remain patient as you try to uncover a point to the whole thing.

I gave this a solid 8 out of 10 for the director’s use of the camera andchoice to cut to color for the climax of the film.The use of black and white and claustrophobic settings (plus the ongoingmusic score) seemed a little too much like the masterpiece in which OrsonWelles directed with Anthony Perkins as the infamous Mr. K, the film I’mspeaking of being The Trial, which is the movie any Kafka fan should viewtocome close to what Kafka’s books and stories represent. Still this moviewasnot a waste of time: a good thriller with a little strangeness here andthere, perfect for a boring Sunday night. 8 out of 10.

1st watched 10/3/1998 - 5 out of 10(Dir - Steven Sonderbergh):Despite it’s excellent 1st hour with Jeromy Iron’s playing a quirkyinsurance inspector investigating the strangeness surrounding his partner’sdisappearance, the movie get’s lost in a Frankenstein mode and it neverreturns. The quest for the goings on in the castle do not lend to thehumorof the 1st hour and seem to have needed to be in another movie.

Especially now, as Steven Soderbergh is still riding high on the box-officesuccess and critical acclaim of his Erin Brockovich and Traffic, it isinteresting to take a look at his older movies. One of them being Kafka, thestory of surrealist writer Franz Kafka seemingly put in one of his onetwisted tales. Now, first of all, despite Kafka himself being the lead anddespite some real life events Kafka experienced woven into the story, thisis not your basic biopic. Of course, there’s stuff on Kafka’s relationshipwith his father, his illness and his telling Bisselbeck to destroy his worksafter his death. There are even verbal references to his works (there’s arecurring joke about Kafka’s Die Verwandlung, where a man finds himselfwaking up as an insect). But this is not the focus of the story. We learnabout Kafka and his works through the world in which he becomes embroiled.This world is built from elements out of Kafka’s books, the most prominentof those being the everpresent threat of totalitarian authorities, theparanoia and constant references to ‘the castle’. There’s probably a lotmore like this which I failed to notice, as I’m not the most avid Kafkafan.

It’s an interesting concept, mixing fact and fiction to create a relativelycoherent story, which is certainly more interesting than a by-the-numbersretelling of Kafka’s life. That said, I would imagine that for someonetotally unaquainted with Kafka this would be a mystifying and mystifyinglystylised work . Using black-and-white and colour cinematography in one film,to me, always feels very stylised (loved the way it was used in Schindler’sList, though), and it felt extremely stylised in this one. On the otherhand, the black-and-white cinematography does bring across the peculiaratmosphere of the literary work it’s based on, and the switch provides aninteresting metaphor (I think the colour scenes represent finding truth). Oyeah, and it’s just plain beautiful to look at. Steven Soderbergh’s filmsare always stylised, but in such a way that it marries the content, which isprobably the single most important thing I appreciate him for.

Another thing he’s often appreciated for is his use of actors (Julia Robertsand Benicio Del Toro, anyone?). Unfortunately, it doesn’t really work outhere, though. All characters apart from Kafka himself have hardly any depthand Jeremy Irons’ Kafka is well but also coldly portrayed. Again, keeping inline with Kafka’s work (and perhaps reality), sure, but his performance andthe extremely stylized approach can make this too cold and thereforesometimes uninvolving a movie.

In short: a great concept, a good script and a style which marries it arelet down by some cold acting. Fascinating, but at times curiouslyuninvolving.

Rating: 7/10

to anyone who treasures and appreciates the work of franz kafka (like ido),this movie is seriously going to tick you off. soderbergh has taken thework of a man obsessed with the existential paradoxes and overwhelmingdespair of human life in modern times and made it into a campy, ludicrousscience fiction movie that doesn’t even work as what it really is, cheesyfantasy. and i don’t necessarily mean that *only* as a sarcastic insult,although i do partially;there are some movies that are so atrociously badand laughable that they inadvertently make themselves into cult classics.but this isn’t one of them, because soderbergh either does not recognizehowfundamentally terrible this failure is or he just does not care andelectedto make a sub average, less than mediocre film. he makes a few minor andfumbling attempts at conveying kafka’s mistrust of bureaucracy andinstitutional authority in general, but they are far too satirical andjustplain bad to take seriously or really even notice. these scenes are mostlyat the beginning, and jeremy irons does give a decent performance,(althougheven the best actor can’t do much when the plot is so awful and the linesare so absurd that sir lawrence olivier couldn’t make an audience takethemseriously), but for the better part of this shameful waste of celluloidsoderbergh does something unforgivable in its depravity:he tries to makefranz kafka an action hero. i definitely could have gotten behind doingthemovie in black and white, which would have been a good move if the therestof it had been worth anything, but judging from every other aspect of thispiece of crap the perceptive viewer can only come to one of twoconclusions:that soderbergh is a profoundly evil and sadistic man whodeliberately and maliciously decided to defile and dumb down the legacy ofthe ominous and slightly twisted poetic genius that was franz kafka, orthathe actually thought he was making a good film by mutilating all of hisworkand making it into some ludicrous mishmash of B-movie bravado and sheerabsurdity, in which case he deserves not our contempt but our pity.soderbergh IS extraordinary in one sense, however, in that i don’t thinkanyother director (with the possible exception of oliver stone? let’s notforget ‘the doors’) could have taken such fascinating and importantmaterialand made a movie this horrible. if you have some bizarre impulse towitnessthe cinematic equivalent of a horrendous car accident in all it’s horrorandrepugnance, RUSH to rent this movie.

How to approach KAFKA, the movie…Activate your paranoia parameters and take this vow: As a pure art

form, Cinema cannot shine the shoes of Literature. Excepting Orson Welles, of course, and expect KAFKA, the movie,

to freely borrow stylistically and climactically.Would the original Franz Kafka have liked this movie?Of course not!Kafka, the writer, was inca
pable of liking anything.Excepting, maybe, Orson Welles’ THE TRIAL.Should diehard Kafka readers like this movie?Of course they can, if they don’t require their shoes to beshined.

Superb direction, excellent acting, chilling cinematography, wonderful useof light and shadow, and a plot that simply could not have been morepointless. The story, although similar perhaps in approach to Kafka’s work,fails to convey the underlying meaning of the man’s work. It seems highlylikely that the script-writer read some literary reviews of Kafka’s stories,and found that to be sufficient research for his script, ignoring Kafka’sactual work altogether.

It’s difficult to put this massive (and quite unforgivable) flaw aside, butlets try our best. This is actually one of the best Film Noirs to come outof the last several decades. True, it borrows many ideas from Reed andWells, but utilizes them very effectively, something that can not be saidfor the many thousands of other Film Noir directors who have attempted tocopy the same elements. The dark and ominous nature of the film isextremely interesting, and the gradual build-up of tension is executedflawlessly. All of the actors do a splendid job, especially the verytalented Jeremy Irons. So what went wrong? This film would have greatlybenefited if the story had been even slightly less ludicrous. Unfortunately, it’s not. Had it something to do with the real Kafka or hisstories, then maybe this would have been one of the best films of the 90s. However, it’s really impossible to take this movie seriously knowing that itignored everything about the man for whom it was titled, and instead churnedup one of the dumbest plots of the entire 20th century!

In conclusion, this could have been something, but instead is just a wasteof time for anyone, except perhaps fans of Film Noir. Although, no doubt,they, too, will be insulted by the stupidity of the story. This does noteven work as a parody of Film Noir. Shame, shame, shame on Steven forfailing to read the script before he agreed to waste his time directing thispointless film.

This is just another typical example of a director trying to look smart andthen messing with something he doesn´t understand. There is no level inwhich this piece of cinema works. Cinematography is O.K., but that´s noteven worth of a mention. Soderbergh tried to do some kind of a pamflet ofKafka´s real life, his stories (specially "The Castle" and "The Trial") andthen he mixed that into a pointless film-noir scenery (even that has alreadybeen done before, only much, much better in Cronenberg´s "Naked Lunch").Jeremi Irons is totally out-of-focus in this role, and so is the entirecast. But who can blame them, I would be too if I had to say such ridiculousand meaningless lines and dialogues as they did. I have no idea who gave theopportunity to such pathetic and below average directors like Soderbergh tovisualise the lives and works of important figures of literature and artlike Franz Kafka. It´s a real shame that this awful movie even exists.(Steven Soderbergh obviously did not learn his low capabilities ofunderstanding the art, ´cause years after "Kafka" he did even worseblasphemy then this one and completely ruined and simplified Stanislaw Lem´ssci-fi master piece "Solaris")

read comments (0)

My Girl

The most annoying thing I find in any movie is the sudden change ofmoods.What begins as a comedy suddenly turns into a tragic movie whichtriestoo hard to bring tears to it’s audiences eyes and isn’t verysuccessful.Thelead character is too difficult and stubborn to be likeable and the filmsobsession with death is off putting.As for the performances the adultstarsseem to be sleepwalking through their roles and going through themotions.Macauley Culkin is wooden as usual and shows how ineffective he iswithout props,an empty house,cartoonish villains and violence.Only AnnaChlumsky as Vada plays her part with perfection.All in all of interestonlyto people belonging to the heroines age-group and gender.

My girl is a typical family movie. It got everything. "Brainless" story,some humor scenes, "nice to your ear" music and naturally, some lovecomplications.

Heh, and a scene that puts this movie a little above average. Yes, I’mtalking about "death scene". And maybe the acting of young couple. Mackulayand Anna were quite good, while others were unnoticed.

Otherwise, there’s nothing more to write about that movie. After you sawit, you’ll probably say :"A nice movie." And after 10 minutes you forgot,what it was all about.

That’s why a 5 out of 10 is suitable.

my girl is summed up as the movie where the girl has a strange dad running abusiness in the house as a undertaker, where he is dating someone new. andthe entire time anna focuses on the death of the mom, whose influence is nowhere to be found, as anna develops into a tomboy and befriends a kid who isalmost allergic to everything around him. this movie had the average amountof funnies, and some drama. but i figured that she would be messed up sincethe dad is an undertaker in the house! enough said, i would be messed up forlife. but i guess she takes it as normal, since she practically grew upthere. jamie lee curtis let off the halloween vibe to me, like she stillbrought that character with her and tries to portray the nice girlfriend.and dan shouldnt be a undertaker, if there is one change i could make aboutthe movie would give him a different job, like a gardener or something.. sothe atmosphere of death isnt all around him. so overall, the movie wasaverage acting, but the performances of the children was perfect, and sowhenever i see the oldie on tbs, i tear up. (C C-)

This was a waste of money to see in the theater and I urge everyone outthere to see a REAL tearjerker like Ghost or The Cure instead of thissticky-sweet insult to good filmmaking. Or read the book version of "MyGirl", which was a worthwhile read.

Why did I dislike this film so much?

It was predictable. Too much time went into warning parents that My Girlhad a sad ending, at the expense of a darned good surprise.

The performances, frankly, stunk; except for a few choice moments by Veda’suncle. The dialogue was immature. The plot was choppy and tended to focusmore on what a horrific brat the main character was, rather than thefriendship between Veda and Thomas J.

I read the original script. The film was SUPPOSED to end with the line "Mymother will take care of him!" screamed from a distance; when Thomas J’smother returns Veda’s ring. It was a heartbreaking, emotional way to end amovie, and might have saved it; but someone chose to end My Girl with Vedaand her "new best friend" getting on their two-wheelers and riding away.This, I presume, was meant to reassure all those little kiddies out therewatching the film that Veda was "gonna be OK". How insulting. Those of uswho have lost childhood sweethearts know better. We never see Vedamourn.

Other complaints: The filmmakers try too hard to make us see Veda’s dad asa "nice guy", even though in the original script, he was portrayed as acold, heartless man who ruined Veda’s childhood, which would have been muchmore believable. Shelly was supposed to be about 20 years younger than shewas portrayed in the film.

The filmmakers also switch rapidly back and forth between how "adult" thechildren are, and how "childish" the children are. Some films do thisartfully and realistically (see "Welcome To The Dollhouse" for a goodexample); however, with Thomas J and Veda, it felt like an utter lack ofdecisiveness: "Should we cater to the kids who will watch because of Culkinor should we cater to the adults who will watch because of Curtis? Oh,well, let’s try and cater to both."

This film could have been all kinds of things: thought-provoking,heartbreaking, funny, nostalgic . . . Instead we’re handed one adjectivethat sums up My Girl all too well:

Sappy.

When Roger Ebert gave this film 3.5 stars, I naturally figured it musthavesomething worth my time, especially as it boasted Jamie Lee Curtis in oneofthe leading roles. Imagine my surprise to discover a slow, unimaginativeplot and wooden performances all around! Not only that, these kids arefromMars or possibly further out. It’s as though they actually grew up on oneofthe TV shows they aspire to living in. This might rate 3.5 stars if you’re9years old, maybe. For those more mature or discerning, time would bebetterspent watching something like "Angelo, My Love", directed by RobertDuvall.Now there’s a kid with his feet on the ground!

May contain spoilers but more about me than the movie

I first saw this movie when I was about 7 or 8 when it came out on video I’doccasionally see it on TNT or TBS or USA or any type of Cable channel andalthough a chick flick I still enjoyed (plus it has one of my favoriteComediens Dan Aykroyd) Well anyway back to mys story my ex-girlfriend who Iwas on and off with for about a year and a half We were always good friendseven when we weren’t dating was in a car accident and died about a year agoand I felt very similar to how Vada felt because my ex happened to be thefirst girl I fell in love with I felt like my life was over while now I’m inlove with a beautiful older woman and we plan and staying together for along time!!

There’s a lot wrong with this film. Start with two purportedlyintelligent 11-year-olds who have all the savvy of 7-year-olds who’vebeen locked in an attic. Add in that Macauley Culkin can’t act andcomes across as a trained sea lion, though some might say prettier(itself debatable). Proceed to that annoying voice-over. I thought avoice-over, when necessary at all, serves to superimpose upon theaction the retrospective, and ostensibly more enlightened, reflectionsof the narrator at a later time. Otherwise, as here, it indicates onlythat the writers couldn’t manage action and dialogue sufficiently totell the story. I won’t mention the melodramatic plot because 1) itmight not yet be cliché to very young viewers, and 2) I don’t want tobe accused of "spoiling," though I can’t imagine anyone reading thiswho doesn’t already know what happens. Therefore I’ll end with thequestion-cum-protest of why poor Anna Chlumsky, whose performance isthe one delight in this movie, gets billed FOURTH? This is done toyoung performers all the time, and nobody seems to care. It’s justplain wrong.

I really liked this movie. Anna Chlumsky did extremely well in her firstscreen role, and the experienced actors very ably backed her up. Thesoundtrack is great (I love the scene with Vada and Thomas J riding theirbikes to the tune "Good Lovin"), and the story is sweet, funny, poignantandsad. Just like real life. Just like growing up.

"My Girl" is a funny, cute, and excellent movie. Anna Chlumsky and MucaulyCulkin are very good in this film. Also Dan Akyrod and Jamie Lee Curtis didgood jobs in their performances. This film is a very funny and dramatic taleof what it’s like to have a best
friend. I give it an 8 out of10.

May contain spoilers but more about me than the movie

I first saw this movie when I was about 7 or 8 when it came out on video I’doccasionally see it on TNT or TBS or USA or any type of Cable channel andalthough a chick flick I still enjoyed (plus it has one of my favoriteComediens Dan Aykroyd) Well anyway back to mys story my ex-girlfriend who Iwas on and off with for about a year and a half We were always good friendseven when we weren’t dating was in a car accident and died about a year agoand I felt very similar to how Vada felt because my ex happened to be thefirst girl I fell in love with I felt like my life was over while now I’m inlove with a beautiful older woman and we plan and staying together for along time!!

read comments (0)

Naked Lunch

Of all movies by David Cronenberg that I’ve seen - which, admittedly,is not many- this film is definitely my least favorite, but that’s notto say that there’s nothing to recommend it. For one thing, since themovie is an adaptation of a William S. Burroughs novel that’s famouslydifficult and obscure, and supposedly almost completely plot less,anyone not familiar with the book- like me- is probably not going tohave as much appreciation for Cronenberg’s sheer gall in taking on suchdifficult material. Still, I suspect I would have to be very intoBurroughs before I see the film as anything than an interestingfailure. Insofar as "Naked Lunch" has a plot, it involves a Burroughsalter ego named Bill Lee who works as an exterminator until he becomeshooked on his own "bug powder." Learning that the cops are after him,Bill becomes paranoid and, in what may or may not be an accident,shoots her in the head after telling her that, "it’s time for ourWilliam Tell trick." He then escapes to "Interzone," a NorthAfrican-like city populated mainly by gay American expatriates, whichhe files reports on under the orders of his typewriter, a giant talkinginsect. As I said, I haven’t read Naked Lunch and can’t really saywhat’s from the book, but I do know that large sections of thescreenplay are from some of Burrough’s other, more coherent books. Andmaybe most disturbingly, much of the story is actually based onBurrough’s own life, including his murder (?) of his wife. In fact,what Cronenberg has done here is closer to Adaptation than to aconventional adaptation, by making a movie about the writing of "NakedLunch" (which I believe was written in North Africa, though maybe notwith the help of any giant insects). Cronenberg’s knack for creatingunsettling, reality-stretching imagery is fully on display here, andfor a while the film is just strange enough to be interesting. Still,Naked Lunch is much more boring than any movie about a man with atalking insect for a typewriter has a right to be, maybe because it’san adaptation of Serious, Important Literature. The film’s sluggishquality might be partly due to Cronenberg’s direction, which always hasa controlled, intensely focused quality similar to Stanley Kubrick’s,and while obviously accomplished on its own, might be wrong for thehallucinatory material in "Naked Lunch." Peter Weller, in yet anotherbizarre role (his others have included Buckaroo Banzai, Robocop, andthe yuppie Ahab to an over-sized rat’s Moby Dick in that epicmasterpiece "Of Unknown Origin"), turns in a typically good, deadpanperformance, but his character of Bill Lee/William Burroughs doesn’treally develop in any particularly compelling ways, and this inertquality extends to the rest of the movie. For all of the weirdness thatCronenberg’s work is known for, at his best he also creates narrativescompelling enough to make his reality-bending games more than academicexercises and characters well-rounded enough to involve you emotionallyin all of the mutations and distortions that take place. WhatCronenberg has ended up with here is the sort of movie that’s moreinteresting in theory than in practice.

I don’t know what people were smoking when they called this film amisunderstood classic, but I’m assuming it wasn’t anything legal. Holypickle, this is by far one of the most aggravating and annoying filmsever made. People who don’t "understand" (i.e. like) it usually getthat typical speech from people who think they do: "Well, you justdon’t understand it, it’s a brilliant criticism of the writingprocess." If you want a good criticism of the writing process rent"Adaptation." This movie is just weird for weird’s sake and I can’tremember the last time a man having sex with his dead wife while beingraped from behind by a typewriter with buttocks and a tail wasconsidered a clever statement on the writing process, but maybe I justhaven’t shot up with enough heroin in my lifetime to "get it." But tobe frankly honest I’d rather be raped by a buttock-laden typewriterthan have to be forced into "understanding" this repulsive piece ofgarbage.

Though this film is artfully made, it is a disturbing view with little ifany redeeming reasons to watch. Lives filled with confusion, blindness andself destruction, careening into further fear and loathing is perhapsusefulor even entertaining when it has a purpose. The reason for this filmescapesme. Darkness and perversion and directionless unhappiness in a person’slifeis not entertainment.

I was really looking forward to this movie, based on the trailer and what Ihad heard about Burroughs’ writing (never read it myself though). And withCronenberg and a great lead player, how can one go wrong??

Well, I tried hard — twice, in fact — but just couldn’t get interested init enough to stay awake. Cronenberg’s special effects were imaginative andwell-done, but it just wasn’t enough to carry it off. For me, atleast.

I don’t know what went wrong. I did lots of drugs in the 60s, I loveCronenberg’s work and I really wanted to like this one. Maybe it’s me, butdon’t get your hopes up on this one. See it when it’s free.

I’m guessing you have to be a fan of David Lynch, William S. Burroughs orDavid Cronenberg to like this. Because the movie I saw wasn’t themasterpiece some of us are saying it is.

This movie just plain doesn’t make sense. Of course, it’s a guy’shallucination, but that storyline alone (if you can call it that) is justplain bad.

Characters roll in, characters roll out, odd things happen, typewritersgetsexually excited, a bug talks to a man in a bar, a William Tell routinegoesbad, blah blah blah…this movie rambles on, proud to bepointless.

The idea of a movie taking place inside a man’s mind is a fascinating one,but that thrill doesn’t last long once you realize you can’t piece thisstory together.

I’ll leave you with this: A friend of mine, who was heavily intopharmaceuticals (ahem), said you had to watch this movie high tounderstandit.

I think I’ll pass.

I rented this movie expecting to see something different and entertaining.I’m a guy with a true appreciation for the weird and strange (ie. Gummo,City Of Lost Children) but this was a bit too much. In every scene someguywould be yabbering on about books and bug dust. Typewriters turning intobugs and heads, it seemed like the director had to go for a gross outfactorto try and keep his viewers, well, engrossed. I almost stopped it halfwaythrough out of complete boredom but I had hoped it would all make senselater on in the movie. I didn’t get any real explanation in the end.Instead, i went insane for a while, laughing, and thinking about bugs

This is definitely something you can SKIP.

So, if one word could describe this film, it would be: huh? I have seensome pretty odd movies, but never before have I seen such a movie as "nakedlunch." I usually can unravel the craziness and form some kind ofunderlying message, theme, or SOMETHING that makes sense in some kind oflogical way. But strangely enough, I cannot quite crack "Naked Lunch." Idon’t know if that is what is intended or not. But I prefer to think thatDC did a fine job of directing this movie, making it an insanely insanestory. Simply insane. And not making sense. Lack of sanity… yeah,that’s for sure.

Perhaps you could disregard all logical thought when watching this, andthink of it as a wacked-out dream milked out of your subconcious andexcreted onto the glass of your television set. I simply cannot explainthis movie, for I did not understand it… or at least to a degree in whichI usually understand complex movies. (!)

I must hand it to DC and Mr. Author and give them some thumb for finallymaking a movie which I cannot crack…yes, crack. What a great word forthis movie, cause personally,
I think this movie is on crack.

However odd this movie might seem, I do recommend it. Just watch it. You’ll know what I mean… not to be missed, but not to be understood. Strange huh?

It’s 25 minutes too long, and has a plot that’s maddeningly complicated evenfor Cronenberg (who gave us the headtrips of "Videodrome" and "eXistenZ," aswell), but "Naked Lunch" is filled with images that burn themselves ontoyour memory with violent authority. The Burroughs novel on which it’s basedwas an unashamed mess given longevity by its ‘obscenity’ which made itcontroversial at the time of publication. The film is fueled by aconsistently frightening ‘waking-nightmare’ quality (what is real and whatisn’t), accompanied by Middle-Eastern settings and images of typewritersturning into bugs and sprouting sexual organs. The lighting is precise andskillfully zeroes in on a character’s eyes to emphasize the tone of theirdrug-addled state, and some scenes of withdrawl are presented with anaccuracy unseen in mainstream film. David Cronenberg is a talenteddirector, certainly one of my favorites, but "Naked Lunch" is, in its ownway, as carelessly indulgent as Burroughs’s book. The plot is hard todecipher and the metaphors are a bit heavy-handed (DDT as a substitute forheroin, etc.), but it’s an undeniably entrancing film all the same, withsome offbeat humor, a mood-setting musical score (by Cronenberg mainstayHoward Shore) and spirited acting (Peter Weller is a fine facsimile ofBurroughs). "Naked Lunch" isn’t a headtrip on par with David Lynch’s"Eraserhead," but it is diverting.

7/10

Dude!

What the hell was that? How do people cook such stuff that sucks likeanything? Unless I missed the point there is no point watching thismovie. I was left troubled after the movie ended. This typewriter stuffand unnecessary exotic things and unwanted mystery and overpouredweirdness made the whole movie unbearable. I watched the movie withpatiencly with subtitles on so that I don’t miss the point. But itturned out that there was no point anyway. I have seen weird movies andstuff but this was little too much. People who want to see dirty andexotic and things might want to give it a shot.

-Vishy

Most of you probably know that "Naked Lunch" is not about unclothedpeople eating a midday meal. It’s an understatement to say that themovie is about drug addiction. Based on William S. Burroughs’autobiographical novel, exterminator Bill Lee (Peter Weller) getsaddicted to the substance that he uses to kill bugs. After accidentallykilling his wife, Bill ventures to Tangiers, Morocco, where he getsinvolved with a group of people in the international zone (or"Interzone"). In the process, of course, there are many over-sized bugswith whom he carries on conversations. The movie gets progressivelyweirder and weirder.

So, I guess it was possible to film "Naked Lunch", but still, why?Sure, it’s about drug addiction, but like "Fear and Loathing in LasVegas", it’s almost too weird to even follow the point.

read comments (0)