The Spitfire Grill

I have to be the turd in the punchbowl and offer an opinion contrary totheraves this movie seems to get. Everything about this movie is phony, fromthe laughable ‘down-East’ accents, to the totally unbelievableandunlikeable characters. The movie is full of ‘dark secrets’ that one reallydoesn’t care to find out about, and plot contrivances right out of a cheaptelevision melodrama. I fell asleep before the end and didn’t botherrewinding to find out the ending because frankly I didn’t care.

I enjoyed this movie immensely. But, I could not help feeling just alittlelost at the endbecause it seemed the town had quickly forgotten Percy and how she diedtrying to saveEli. There was no mention of her name during the final scene and no kindofmemorialto her love and unselfishness. Although the winner of the raffle had anAppalachianaccent as did Percy, it wasn’t enough. I just wish the ending could havebeen a littlemore satisfying.

This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Sentimental tripe that tries to pull tears out of unsuspecting moviegoers withevery trick in the Hollywood book. Please I would like a littlle morerespect as the audience…let me draw my own conclusions,instead of bludgeoning me with trite sentimentality. An insult to myown judgement, morals, and intelligence.

When Percy is released from prison, she moves to a small town, Gillead, toget a fresh start. Taking up a job as waitress at the Spitfire Grill, shegradually wins the people over, particularly the grill’s elderly ownerHannah. As Percy becomes closer to the town she learns about many secretsand makes many friends, however Nahum Goddard still suspects her motivesandresents her friendship with his wife.

The plot synopsis sounded interesting if not totally promising and Idecidedto give it a try. Sadly the film is so trapped in a syrup of it’s ownmaking that, even when it tries to get dramatic near the end it is far toosentimental to get anywhere near being dramatic. The film has an overlysweet view of small town America that is almost impossible to get past.Itcould have been touching, I agree, but as it is the film just totallyblowsit by miring itself in sentimentality. The plot is brave at points butnever lets this syrup go - and it suffers greatly as aresult.

The script is corny and full of dialogue that never really sounds likesomething that real people would ever say. The characters that grow outofthis dialogue are about as obvious and lacking in subtly as you canimagine.The cast try hard but the dialogue is absurdly sweet that it takes awaygreatly from their performances. Elliott is really good but her characteris so unreal that it takes away all her good work. She is far too sweet,like this angel sent into the small town. Harden is awful, pushing heraccent at the cost of her performance; only in two short scenes did I feellike she did a good job. Burstyn comes out with a lot of credit and isverygood despite her lines. She does play the atypical `grouchy old woman’rolereasonably well despite the clichés that drip from her everyscene.

Overall this film has a basic little story that holds no surprises for themajority of the film - few will be surprised to learn that Percy’s initialcold reception quite quickly turns around to a warmer welcome. It hadpotential and could have been played well for emotion, as it is it aimsforsentimentality and lets the syrup infect everything from the score, thecinematography, the script, the characters, the performances right down tothe plot device of the essay contest. Surprisingly average little filmbutOK if you can accept the syrup.

"The Spitfire Grill" tells of the influence of one young woman (Elliott)onthe people of a small town in Maine. A multifaceted, soapy, and unabashedchick-flick, this critically panned audience pleaser is sentimental almostto a fault. From its sepia tinged warmth to its Norman Rockwellstereotypesto it’s plaintive orchestral score to its contrived storyline, etc., thisflick is out to tug at your heart strings and jerk that tear from youreye.Sentimentalists should kick back, turn off brain, and enjoy. All others,find something else to watch.

I missed Spitfire Grill when it was out in the theaters, though it gotwildly enthusiastic comments fromviewers as diverse as my daughter and my mother. So I renteditand really enjoyed the first half ofthe film. It’s the sort of movie with almost no surprises, but some of thedetails are a hoot, especially thelocation of the Maine Travel Bureau operators.

We’re introduced to a very young prison inmate named Percy, played by theremarkable Allison Elliott. She’sextremely creative and an eager learner, but clearly a person without mucheducation and a rough past. Uponher release she’s sent to a small town in what’s supposed to be ruralMaine.She goes to work for Hannah,the owner of the Spitfire Grill.

The townspeople are a series of horrific cliches, being so small-mindedtheyhardly even talk to the youngwoman, even to the point of not ordering their meals from her in thegrill.This ludicrous behavior does goaway pretty fast, so most of the first half of the movie or so deals withPercy trying to adjust to life outside,with Hannah adjusting to Percy and yet another debilitating injury andwithShelby who comes to help themboth. And the first half of the movie or so is very pleasant andreasonably-true-to-life, almost like a smallBritish movie.

The script is interesting in that parts of it don’t insult the viewer’sintelligence. Some things happen in thebackground that later become very important in the film, but the writerdoesn’t feel the need to batter theviewer over the head with them. So I felt the script had lots ofpotential,at least in the first half.

There are a few problems with the movie overall, and they probably neverbothered the average viewer, but,being a New Englander, they bothered me. The movie is supposed to be setupin rural, central Maine,somewhere near Lewiston or Bethel. However, that area tends to be filledwith forests and lakes, and I don’tremember so much of it having been cleared for farms. It was actuallyfilmedin northeastern Vermont,probably because rural Maine is just too remote. So you get some beautifulshots of Vermont countryside,and a particularly sweeping shot of Lake Willoughby gap (where one largemountain became two smallerones back during the last ice age) in the distance. Similarly, the accentsof almost everyone in the movie islikewise "grafted on." Just like rural Vermont and rural Maine lookdifferent, an upstate Maine residentdoesn’t have the identical speech patterns of an upstate Vermonter. Itsthesort of thing that it’s better to justlet the folks speak without any accent at all than to force them to soundsounnatural.

But these are kind of minor things that no one noticed. The acting,especially of the women in this picture, isquite good, so there’s plenty to hold your interest. However, whatsurprisesme is that no one evermentioned the gross misogyny that permeates almost every frame of the lastthird of this film. The CatholicChurch, a major financier of this film, has shown once again how much itreally has a major problem withhow it treats women. I remember hearing a church representative talk abouthow life-affirming this movie is.Hardly. The movie goes absolutely out of its way to promote the "woman asmartyr" image.

Lots of spoilers follow.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The first hint of the kind of sick direction this movie was going take wasin Percy’s reaction to a man namedJoe. Joe took a shine to her and asks her out, takes her for walks, etc.Percy seems to like him, but doesn’twant to get too close. Finally, Joe asks her to marry him. She turns himdown because he wants children andshe can’t have them. He says he doesn’t care about that, but she’sadamant.

Hannah is very bitter about her son who went to
Viet Nam and didn’t comeback. Well, at least on thesurface. It’s clear her son went AWOL and is hiding and its Hannah’sinsufferable pride and the small townmemories of her husband’s valor in WW II that helps keep her son away fromthe help he so obviouslyneeds. He’s kind of a Bo-Radleyesque character, but this is the ’90s notthe’30s so keeping the son "asecret" just seems wrong.

And then there’s Nahum, Shelby’s husband and Hannah’s nephew. He’s aquietlyviscious man who is nastyto Shelby and to Percy. He’s supposed to have "redeemed" himself at theendof the movie by owning up toone terrible wrong he committed, but the scene was just terribly awkward.

And there’s the situation that landed Percy in prison. Near the end of themovie, she tells Shelby her story.She was sexually abused by her stepfather and made pregnant by him she shewas 16. Since this movie wasfinanced by the Catholic Church, she, naturally, loves the baby of the manwho raped her, and is devastatedwhen he beats her so badly that she loses the baby and her ability to everhave children again. She iskidnapped out of the hospital by this man and kills him in self defense.Youhave to ask yourself what kindof incompetent lawyer did she have, that landed her in jail for even 30seconds much less five years formanslaughter.

As you might have guessed by now, Percy dies by the end of the movie intrying to warn the AWOL son thatthe police are trying to find him because they think she gave him money"shestole" from Hannah. And thelesson the town learns is to be nice to strange women who come to Gileadtoattempt to have a new start atlife.

This picture could have been life-affirming if only it hadn’t sunk to somuch misogyny and melodrama. It’snot so obvious as those movie that promote violence against women, butit’salmost more insidious.

From Burstyn’s crusty loveable codger, Elliott’s trailer-trash-with-heart-of-gold, and Harden’s doormat housewife who grows (sort of) abackbone, wooden one-dimensional performances by all contrive to make thisfilm an elementary exercise in pushing emotional buttons. Huge plot holescontribute to its sappy emptiness. At the end, you left only with asoiledhanky and a vague wonderment as to why you cared.

Pure corn. A female ex-con in a small community in Maine getswaitressing job at the local diner, enlightening everyone there withher presence. Resolutely old-fashioned hokum is replete withpseudo-meaningful platitudes and female bonding (with divergentaccents). Acquired at the Sundance Film Festival for what was reportedto be a princely sum, Castle Rock barely distributed this after thereviews came in (they were probably hoping for another "Fried GreenTomatoes" but got rotten tomatoes instead). Trifling nonsense tries fora looks of prestige, but even this fails as the moody ambianceresembles nothing more than encroaching mold. It at least gave work toEllen Burstyn, whose professionalism and mere presence saves this fromoblivion. Otherwise, a prime candidate for Lifetime's four a.m. movie.* from ****

This film was written and directed by a MAN, Lee David Zlotoff, whose onlyother major film contribution was creating the MacGyver TV series. How couldsuch a MAN convey the deep sensitivity in ‘Spitfire Grill’? Percy’sboyfriend, the sheriff, and Ely all are portrayed as sensitive and caringMEN. Isn’t it strange that some of the MALE film critics could not feelthis film with their hearts?

As a MAN, director-writer Zlotoff was honest enough to show the faults ofMEN, and woman as well. Tremendous care and perception was needed tosuccessfully convey the multi-layered messages in this film. Not only didZlotoff do justice to MEN, but to women as well. The themes of Love,Suffering, and the Truth were all superbly enacted.

Bravo !

Two thumbs up to the writer of this wonderful movie, Lee David Zlotoff, who did a magnificent job to bring this movie to the level of a touching and moving drama. All the characters (an actors) are quite believable, and the plot advances in a not-too-fast way; we have enough time to get acquainted personally with every character and see them evolve.

read comments (0)

The Truth About Cats & Dogs

Abby is a vet with her own radio talk show who answers call-inquestions related to animals. When Brian (Ben Chaplin) rings with aquery about his dog, they both begin to flirt. Soon after the radiobroadcast he calls her private line and asks what she looks like. Sheclaims she’s a tall six-foot blonde beauty (basically) and soon hewants to meet her.

Abby gets her friend Noelle (Uma Thurman) to pose as herself so thatBrian won’t be disappointed. She continues to communicate with Brianvia the telephone but every time he wants to see her, she has to haveNoelle go out with him.

This may sound like a rather silly plot, but it’s well-executed. As afriendly, simple romantic comedy, it delivers exactly what it is meantto. The performances are fine - Chaplin is okay, Garofalo is annoyingas always but suits the character, and Thurman plays the ditz with aheart of gold. Clichés? Yeah. But they work.

The only scene I really had a problem with in this film was a sequencein which Abby and Brian participate in phone sex. It’s kind of a cleveridea but seemed, to me, rather awkward and out of place in such anotherwise family-friendly, sweet-natured comedy. Having suddeninnuendos and hands reaching into pants wasn’t what I expected, and Iimagine it might present an awkward situation for families viewing thefilm with their children. I’m not a prude but I do think this wasunnecessary given the film’s general content and target audience.

Otherwise it’s an inoffensive and gentile comedy.

THE TRUTH ABOUT CATS & DOGS, in my opinion, is a sweet, charming, andhilarious romantic comedy about being yourself. Roy (James McCaffrey)was an absolute jerk! Brian (Ben Chaplin) was the better guy. This wasbecause he yelled at Noelle (Uma Thurman) and broke Abby’s (JaneaneGarofalo) violin bow. When I think about it, the dog on roller skateswas really funny. I wonder how long it took for him to get the hang ofit. Anyway, everyone involved in this film did an absolutelyoutstanding job. Now, in conclusion, I highly recommend this sweet,charming, and hilarious romantic comedy about being yourself to any UmaThurman, Janeane Garofalo, or Ben Chaplin fan who hasn’t seen it.You’re in for lots of laughter, so go to the video store, rent it orbuy it, kick back with a friend, and watch it.

Yes, I winced. I kept waiting for the guy to let on that he knew whatwas going on; that would have been slightly more believable, and mayhave elevated this to the status of "charming" romantic comedy that somany have found it. As stands, there is not an ounce of truth, orintelligence, about this film. Oh, cut it with the sledgehammer of a"message", that doesn't even work here. The Garofolo character issupposed to impress as a woman of substance, but really, she is soundeveloped as a person such that the substance falls by the wayside.This ain't about her shape or size or face. If these people were intheir teen years it may have been more convincing. If Garofolo'scharacter had showed more vulnerability, real vulnerability in a matureskin, it may have won me over. The only character that kept me watchinghere was Ben Chaplin's–now there is a person of substance, withenormous charisma and a beautiful presence. There's the fantasy dreamin this movie. The Garolo character is pathetic, but not for thereasons purported here…

The truth about this film is that it is VERY good. Uma Thurman, andJaneaneGarfolo are great in this film. This is a wonderful comedy and romace film!If you haven’t seen this film, you completely MUST SEE THIS! I give it a 10out of 10 !!!

I have two opinions of this movie.

The first one is that it’s an excellent movie; an excellent retelling of myfavorite story, Cyrano de Bergerac. Janeane and Uma do an amazing job ofbeing (respectively) Cyrano and Christian, the brains and thebody.

The second opinion is rather less flattering to the movie. While it’s truethat just about anyone would be overshadowed by Uma Thurman, the idea ofJaneane G. being ‘dumpy’ or ‘unattractive’ is… Hollywoodfantasy.

Those of us who really are unattractive would love to look as good as shedoes, and it’s mildly ironic that a movie which talks about the beauty mythat the same time plays into it.

See the movie… but think about it.

Janeane plays Abby, who is a doctor of some sort who also has a radio talkshow for pet lovers. One day Brian calls her and needs help getting hisdog out of the rollerskates on his paws. How the skates got on is neveraddressed. Abby successfully gets the skates off Hank (the dogs eventualname) over the phone and Brian is quite impressed and asks Abby out. Shesays she is 5′10" and blonde because she’s painfully insecure about herlooks.

Luckily, a 5′10" blonde lives down the hall from Abby. Her name is Noelleand she is in a bad relationship. One night when Abby confronts this badrelationship in the hall, he is rude to her so Noelle is nice enough toapologize and shows up at the radio station Abby works at, even though thesewomen don’t even know each other, much less where the other works. Moreimprobabilities are forthcoming, as Brian shows up at the radio station atthat exact moment and Noelle has to pose as Abby, or we would have less of amovie than we already do.

The three of them hang out together one night. Brian is more and moreattracted to Noelle (who is now Abby) and the real Abby (who is now Donna)is disappointed, of course. But Brian and (ha, ha) ‘Donna’ have a lengthyphone conversation one night (the movies way of excusing the glaringdifference in the characters voices is ridiculous) and really connect, whichmakes Brian’s inevitable love for (ha, ha) ‘Abby’ all the more hurtful forDonna.

To the movie’s credit, ‘Abby’ is a good friend to ‘Donna’ and tries torepair the rift between them constantly, but her phone calls are allignored. The women are at least sensible enough not to fight over the guy,at least in a Jerry Springer kind of way.

Naturally it all ends well for the lovers, but the character of Noelle isnot treated with tons of respect. Its almost as though she exists so thatthe lovers will have something to overcome, an obstacle more than an actualperson. You never find out what happens to Noelle, who was nice enough torespect her friend by not sleeping with the man she knew she was in lovewith. I understand the movie was not about her in the first place, but shestill deserves better than the movie is willing to give her.

I don’t like movies where a silly, immature misunderstanding is the onlything holding the plot (such as it is) together. Its nice to see Janeaneplay a character, but she’s treated like an ogre, and that’s not just whenits in comparison to Uma Thurman. Ben Chaplin is charming, but notoverwhelmingly so.

Okay to see once, will not hold up to multiple viewings. 5/10.

If you don’t find Garofalo’s character appealing, the movie is unlikely tosatisfy. I didn’t. Both of the female characters are insecure - aboutdifferent things - but Garofalo is made sarcastic, manipulative, lying andcaustic by her insecurity - the sweet Thurman remains candid, sincere,straightforward by hers. I’d always have chosen Thurman’s character overGarofalo’s.

**** SPOILERS ****

Time and time again, I am put off by things the Garofalo character does -from pinning someone with her bow when she hears him insulting Thurman (atthat point, a relative stranger to Garofalo), lying about the way she looksto someone whom she doesn’t know who asks her for coffee, standing theperson up (he waits hours), insisting that Thurman continue to lie about heridentity to the man, engaging in phone sex (and a very long masturbatoryscene with someone who thinks she’s another). There’s not much that’sappealing about her.

**** END SPOILERS****

Sure, everyone has insecurities - but those of most
do NOT cause them tomanipulate those around them, etc. I found her personality ugly - and themovie thus failed. Were I Ben Chaplin, I’d never have spoken to heragain.

I have watched this film twice, on video, and I still have the same issueswith it as the first time. It is not believable.Abby (Garofalo) is a successful woman; she is a veterinarian with her ownradio show, she is witty, smart, funny and good-looking.Noelle (Thurman) is a model whose only attraction is that she is nice; sheis not pretty, she is not very smart, she is not learned, she is not veryfunny, and she is way too thin. She is a doormat to herboyfriend.Brian (Chaplin) is a photographer who seems to have a solid Britisheducation; lots of literature, politics which he likes todiscuss.

So Brian talks to Abby on the phone and falls in love with her mind, butmeets Noelle instead and falls in love with her flesh thinking she isAbby.There are numerous times where Noelle slips and does not know what Brianandthe real Abby has discussed on the phone and fails to react to him in theexpected way. There are numerous times when Brian notices this. He issupposed to be a smart guy but he just does not get it. They could havemadethe movie a lot more plausible if they had centered in on him for a while,and his struggling with the Abby/Noelle split personalityissues.

But since they did not, I can only give this movie 3/5.

This would have been a good film with much to say aboutappearances,had the two lead actresses actually looked as their characters were supposedto look.

Thurman was supposed to be a gorgeous supermodel, yet she looked awful andalmost ugly in almost every scene, which is strange because Uma is beautiful, while all Garofalo had to do to become pretty was wash her hair.

It is a shame because this film had a lot going for it, but thebelievability factor was shot because of the way both starsappeared.

Listener (Ben Chaplin) falls in love with the host of a radio showabout cats and dogs (Jeanne Garofalo); she is self-conscious about herlooks, and hits upon the "don’t try this at home, kids" kind of idea toget pal Uma Thurman to pose as her. Problem: Uma has adifferent-sounding voice, and is a total moron. Jeanne must feed Umalines so hubby Chaplin won’t realize she’s minus a brain.

I always use this movie as an example of what not to do in comedies.

The kind of comedy where everybody lies to each other constantly.

Its the epitome of obnoxiousness.

I find nothing of value in a character that either gets someone else topose as her, or would be prepared to pose as someone else. And theguy’s some kind of idiot if he couldn’t tell that Uma Thurman (whosecharacter is not portrayed as a good actress at all) knew nothing aboutcats or dogs.

2/10.

read comments (0)

Tin Cup

Ooh whee does this movie stink!. Ever hear of going to the well one too manytimes? Certainly Ron Shelton demonstrates here that he’s no smarter thanmost in Hollywood going back to the sports well for the ump-too-many time(Great White Hype, Cobb, Blue Chips), as well as contaminating what was anice collaboration-that being Shelton+Costner=Bull Durham.

Every situation in this film is painful to watch. I’m constantly reminded ofa guy with a bad toupee. He won’t take it off, he just fidgets with it,constantly. Put Don Johnson in any scene, and he walks all over everyoneelse trying to steal it. Kevin Costner looks so incredibly uncomfortable,that it makes me uncomfortable to watch him. It’s almost like he just had atremendous failure in his career (Waterworld) with knowledge that an evenbigger one (The Postman) is on the way.

I’m an avid golfer, and listen, golf is boring to watch, even the goodgolfers. It’s even more boring to watch bad golfers, who cares if they’reacting like good golfers?

So it was just a bad idea, complicated by some bad casting choices, a lethalcombination which may only happen some 30-50 times a year on screen.

On to the next.

This was a big production with lots of big names and flashy scenes, but itstill failed to score with me. No problem with the performances and mostofthe dialogue was interesting, but I could find no sympathy for the losergolfer with the winning smile and personality who was at heart justanotherself made casualty of life. He just plain aggravated me with his silly,selfflagellating nonsense. What a wormy moron, and he gets the girl[which,considering the standard female attitude toward dips like him, was nosurprise either].

I don’t like Kevin Costner (that "charming" little grin is always present)and find him a complete bore. He hasn’t done anything interesting since"Dances with wolves". I HATE golf. Mix them together and you have thisso-called romantic-comedy. Where is the comedy? I didn’t laugh once. ReneRusso, an talented actress, is given absolutely nothing to do. This moviehas a smell of "lets-give-the-audience-what-it-wants" that you can feel amile away!

It is funny when he doesn’t direct the film, the film actually turns outpretty good. The beginning and ending was strong, but the middle had toomuch filler material. Don Johnson plays an excellent role. He looked andhad that sarcastic attitude as he did as Sonny Crockett on Miami Vice. Ienjoyed this part. This movie was worth renting, but nothing to screamabout. 6/10

This movie may know something about golf, but it doesn’t speak to any ofthereasons I enjoy film. Rather than inhabiting the characters, the actorspreen asif they are cock-sure we will like them for their looks. And while theymaybegood-looking, the coarse language detracts more from every scene than anyamount of make-up or costume change can compensate for.

I found the plot simplistic and formulaic, and for this reason alone I cannotrecommend the film. But if stronger reasons are needed outside boredom,beadvised that this film insults with its incessant use of badlanguage.

This is a zero laugh movie. That is not good for a comedy. No drama here,either. This movie serves as proof that if a major industry player choosesto spend enough money on promotion it can promote anything into making moneyif it features a star that is popular at the time the movie comes out. Thissnoozer makes Happy Gilmore and Caddyshack look like Godfather I andGodfather II. Heck, it even makes Dude Where’s My Car look like Schindler’sList. The only good thing about this movie is the end, because you realizethat no matter what you do, and no matter how long you live, you will neverhave to sit through another movie as lame as this.

This film is sickly. No, predictable. That’s the word. A series of hugelyunlikely scenarios vaguely connected by a formula that Hollywood seems tothink can be rehashed over and again - an eccentric hero that people (theythink) would take as some kind of hero, on account of his consistentfailure. Would a successful chick like the ‘doctor’ look twice at atrailer-living, scruffy-but-apparently-philosophically-brilliant utterfailure like ‘Tin Cup’? I don’t think so. And then, of course despite the"shanks", he gets into the U.S. Open. Of course he does…if only for theexcuse to get golf-big-names exposed to the wider public.

So to make the movie work, simply take an unlikely scenario (golf), applyatwist or two (so-legendary-that no-one-ever-heard-of-him-golf-pro who issofar down on his luck he runs a middle-of-nowhere driving range and livesina trailer) add a few unlikely eccentrics (failure-loving intelligentchick,business-savvy stripper (ok people, no stereotypes applied, but they dotheyexist??) and mix the whole lot up with a load of pseudo-psychology, andpredictable situations like the golf-pro getting the ’shanks’, or thepsychiatrist calling her mentor to explain how cute the golf-pro is. Whydoes Russo get involved in this stuff (see the scene in Thomas CrownAffairon the patio in Brosnan’s tropical shag-pad).

The result? A movie that, unless it casted two mega-stars would never havesucceeded, appeals to only the kind of viewer who just wants to see KevinorRenee on a screen no matter what they acted. Feel-good, whatever thephrase,this film is utter tosh. Don’t waste your time.

I just didn’t understand the reason for this film.Mindless pap is the most enthusiasm I can muster to even write aboutit.(Just) It seemed to promise something round every 15 minute corner andturned into just another scene for Kev to waggle his a**e at Russo.

Leave alone.

Let me get this straight. In order to enjoy a film, I like it to eitherhavea new slant on a subject, have something deep to say, or at least havesomegood acting. This film had none of these said attributes.

It is simply a string of uninspiring scenes involving stupid golfingshots.Don’t get me wrong, I am all in favour of watching films that dabble inactsof improbability, but only when they are done in an amusing manner. In myopinion this was the equivalent of the as yet unmade "Earnest plays golf",but without anyone funny and less of a love interest. The all-conqueringHappy Gilmore released in the same year was almost based along the samelines but was immeasurably funnier, thrilling and dramatic.

This was indeed an example of how to make a big budget film and leave itwith almost no redeeming features. This sort of film is always along thesame lines. We get to see events through the eyes off the main characterwhohas a clearly defined adversary from the very start. Glory will fall intothe hands of either the person that we are seeing events through (the"good"guy), or to his main rival (the "bad" guy). It is never a case of thembothbeing thoroughly good blokes of unquestionable moral integrity. It neverfalls into the hands of a third, unmentioned party. If the film is fromtheranks of Hollywood then it is almost certain that victory will go to thissupposedly "good" guy. There is no need to get excited at the end when thevictor is to be decided.

If you are a golf fan and want to watch an unfunny dramatisation of yoursport, then you’ve found the right film. If, however, you just want towatchan amusing golf film, then go for Caddy Shack or Happy Gilmore, even ifyouhave seen them 100 times before.

Please, avoid watching this banal and cliché-laden offering UNLESS you areof the type that: actively avoids thinking; watches soap operas; listenswith your mouth open and writes with your tongue stickingout.

Would love, love, love to see a sequel done to this movie. It’s fun evenifyou don’t know how to play golf (and I don’t). The soundtrack to thismovieis really good. Especially
love that song, "Big Stick" and "Nobody ThereBut Me". Do wish there wasn’t the foul language, though. I think it’s a10plus with a little draw!

read comments (0)

Trees Lounge

Some guy loses his girlfriend, his job and now drinks all day in aboring bar. He then inherits an ice cream van from his deceased uncleand drives around the streets half-bored selling sweets.

This is a perfect example that illustrates good actors don'tnecessarily make good films! The characters are weak, the story told athousand times before and the complete luck of active plot makes thefilm suitable only for TV on a Sunday afternoon. Buscemi fails to pushthe actors to their limits resulting in a 'soap opera' styleperformance which is well below the average. Most of the scenes werepointless and contributed nothing to the film.

Trees Lounge could have started straight after Tommy inherited the Van(thirty minutes before the end) and still wouldn't make any difference!If you do end up watching the film just imagine how the film would belike if Tarantino directed it.

Better watch TV commercials

Tommy is an unemployed mechanic who had a problem on his last job and can’tseem to get another job until he finally gets to run an ice cream truck. Healso might have gotten another man’s wife pregnant. Other than that, I canonly say that this movie was about the people who hang out at a bar calledTrees Lounge.

I did like the scenes with Tommy and Debbie. Other than that, two sceneshad promise: one with an old man in an ice cream truck with lots ofchildren around, and one with Samuel L. Jackson. Unfortunately, Jacksonwasn’t around long, and the ice cream truck scene didn’t lead to anythingpositive.

There was some good music, specifically old-style jazz. Unfortunately,there was a lot of music I didn’t like.

I guess there are people who would like this. I just wasn’t one of them.

By looking at the cover for this movie, you would think its another boringmovie about drunks, but it really isnt. Steve Buscemi creates a veryinteresting study that focuses on how several people surrounding a bar’slives intersect. It’s also nice to see Steve Buscemi in a role where hedoesnt play a ruthless bad-ass, but a good natured man. If you like SteveBuscemi, you should certainly give it a try, it might surprise you.8/10.

Trees Lounge was an excellent movie. Steve Buscemi displayed his multi-talentedness as writer, director, and star of the movie. Also, a terrific performance by Anthony Lapaglia. If you’re a Buscemi fan, or just a fan of good movies, don’t miss this one.

Steve Buscemi proves once and for all that he is an overlooked talent takenfor granted. He pulls triple duty here, as the writer, director, and star ofthis superbly made indie gem. Buscemi is top rate, but it’s also a showcasefor a series of excellent downscale performances; most notably DanielBaldwin, Anthony LaPaglia, and Chloe Sevigny. The most accurate depiction ofalcoholism, an emotional powerhouse of a film. Wholly original, unbelievablyrealistic, and absolutely brilliant. Can’t wait for Buscemi to step behindthe camera again.

This offbeat piece intrigued me, not so much for the story itself, but theunflinching way in which Buscemi films his subjects. He’s completely brutalin displaying Tommy and his friends as losers. Not slackers, not peoplewith no lives, but actual *losers*, people with sad stories and tragedieshanging about them in tatters. The viewer can’t help but empathize withtheir plight, while also regarding it as pathetic. Don’t watch this onewith lots of alcohol, or cold and lonely after your wife of seventeen yearsleft you for another woman.

A man stuck squarely behind a past he can not regain and a future he can notavoid. The past being happiness with the woman he loved, and the future beingalcoholism and a premature death. All this in the guise of an upbeatcomedy. Steve Buscemi is established here as a master film maker. Every wordevery gesture is perfectly placed and important to the forward flow of thefilm. And not a hint of the usual self-indulgence that finds its way into solow budget films. See this film! Then see it again! Then see it twice a yearfor the rest of your life!

He’s probably one of the most underrated actors out there. Maybe becausehechooses quality independent films and not the big money movies? I dunno,butI think he’s great. And Trees Lounge was one of the best movies I’ve seeninthe last three years. Great acting all around, Debi Mazar, Daniel Baldwin,Anthony Lapaglia and CHLOë SEVIGNY. Check out PALMETTO for more of her.

10/10 I give this movie

This is the most depressing movie I have ever seen.What is astonishing is that there is very little sadness to accompany thisfeeling. The characters never ask you to feel sorry for them… they neverfear what they are.The vision is stark, blanched, and utterly truthful.Stellar performance from Buscemi, probably the best of hislife.

being a huge Steve Buscemi fan i was estatic to hear that he had written anddirected (as well as starred in) this film and immediately went out andrented it.

the movie, while low key, is well written and one of the better and moresympathetic profiles of alcoholics that i’ve seen in recent memory. they aregiven surprising depth by Buscemi’s well written screenplay and the actor’sportraying these drunks.

if this is any indication of future movies written and directed by themultitalented Steve Buscemi, then we’re in store for a lot of greatmovies.

rating:8.5

read comments (0)

The Phantom

Spoilers herein.

These films are all about the art. If you get that right, all of theancillary silliness turns into support instead of irrelevance.

So many of these fail in the art. `The Shadow’ and `Daredevil’ succeed where`Dick Tracy,’ `Spiderman,’ `Superman,’ and several of the Batmen fail. `Popeye,’and the second Batman are special, interesting cases.

Here, the original comic posed a world of near-magic, something between an RL Stevenson magical fiction and the ordinary superheros of the day. The mix oftribal magic and industrial determinism was the whole point. The white man’sburden, softened by a romanticized notion of natural purity.

This has more to do with the yearning behind the creation of the Boy Scoutsthan by romance or adventure.

But the movie turns it into a jungle version of Buck Rogers.

If you wish to get value out of this, watch it back to back with `CQ,` whichis about the very same thing as the comic: about how film transmutes that romantic purityinto something that has to be handled differently than in a comic because itoverlaps with reality. In other words, `CQ’ works because it is about the phenomenon thatmakes this film fail. Zane stars in CQ in precisely the same role ashere.

Ted’s Evaluation — 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with thispart of your life.

There’s not alot to say about this film…other than it’s just plain poor.The story is poor, the sets are poor, the writing is poor, and the actingisPOOR. Billy Zane, not the greatest actor, is awful in this movie. I’ve seenhim in other films before and he did okay, but he must have needed themoneyto pay some bills. He seems to be sleep walking through the whole thing.Kristy Swanson, who usually helps any film with her looks can’t save ThePhantom. Her acting too, is bad. I grew up reading The Phantom comics andwas really looking forward to the movie, but I was completely disappointed.The worst part of the movie though..was it made me poor. I spent money tosee it at the theatre.

Visually impressive but goofy comic book adaptation which chroniclesthe phantom, a ghostly hero who's supposedly immortal and has roamedthe African jungles for years thwarting oppression and evil. His latestchallenge leads him to New York City, where he takes on a greedy andimperious tycoon (Williams) who's trying to retrieve powerful ancientskulls that will make him unstoppable. Well-crafted but forgettablecomic book adaptation has some pretty good action scenes, vivid setdesign, and creative special effects, but the film's characters don'tevoke much interest, and the script is filled with corny dialogue.Seems to be trying to capture that rousing, old-fashioned sense ofadventure, but it lacks an engaging hero and has a script that'suninspired and flat. **

The Phantom should have been a great film. It’s based on one of thegreatest adventure strips of the newspaper comics, one beloved the worldover. It had a decent budget and promotion; but, somewhere the film wentsouth.

Billy Zane is OK as the hero, although a bit bland. Kristy Swanson wasforgettable as Diana Palmer, Treat Williams was more annoying thanvillainous, and only Catherine Zeta-Jones was memorable. In fact, the filmshould have stuck with her as the villain.

I can forgive the suit, as it is part and parcel of the strip, although Iwish it had been more faithful. Still, it looked better than most. Thepurple color was basically to help the character to stand out on the comicspage. Early color separation processes were primitive, and bold colorsstood out better. In fact, the suit was more of a reddish color, at fist,before purple became standard.

The film touches on the history of the Phantom well, and Patrick McGoohanwas a nice touch as the ghost of the Phantom’s father. (Kind of ironic, asthe Phantom is known as "The Ghost Who Walks"!). It’s the villains thatreally kill the film.

Treat Williams never seems that much of a threat, and the Singh pirates arebarely in the film. Catherine Zeta-Jones and her air pirates are by far themost interesting. Had the film focused more on their battle with the hero,it would have been light years better.

As a lifelong fan of the comic strip, I was so disappointed in the film. Even the old movie serial did a better job than this.

Don’t see this movie….it was horrible!!!No one should have to put themselves through this, Honestly, it was thatbad. My dog became suicidal after seeing this movie. Took us hours to talkit down off the roof. Performances-horrible; Direction-non existent;Production values-nil; Music-highly strung cat.SHOCKING!

I dare to say that this is not really what Lee Falk had in mind. It’s notthat bad, really, there are moments that work pretty well. But it’s far tomuch of a comedy. I have always regarded The Phantom to be kind of a"serious" super hero adventure. There aren’t many jokes in the originals,and this film is far to "fun" to bear resemblance.

Billy Zane is fairly well cast as Kit Walker, the ghost who walks, he hasthe right looks and the right state of mind to do the job.

The story itself is almost an Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom spoof.There are some elements that are almost exactly the same, and why not? I’mnot that bothered, it’s just that it’s the same era (1930s), the same setupand almost the same object of the villains attention (the skulls - thestones).

Also, a thing that REALLY bothered me - I can’t let things like these go -it the fact that near the end, when the bad guys fly to the island wherethey’ll find the third skull, they make quite a trip with that old plane.The island is clearly somewhere in Indonesia, but yet they fly from New Yorkto this place without stopping. Obviously, because I would bet that thePhantom could find better ways of getting there without having to cling tothe outside of an aircraft for at least two days.

But it’s OK. I didn’t take it so seriously anyway…

Set in the late 1930s, Lee Falk’s comic-strip superhero The Phantom(BillyZane)musters his mortal efforts to stop a madman(Treat Williams)who wants torule the world. Sets and photography are very interesting; but of course thestory is too predictable even for a fantasy world. Also in the cast areKristy Swanson and the always beautiful Catherine Zeta-Jones. Zane is nottoo shabby as a superhero defending honor and slamming evil. Of course thePhantom’s outfit is more comical than impressive. Put your brain in neutraland enjoy the fantasy.

I dunno… lemme see… sparking trees… a horse that runs as fast as aflying plane… a plot that my 10 year old brother could have writtenbetter. It was a terrible movie and the only joy I got from it is thatwhenever I see anyone that I saw the movie with, we can all get a laughfromthe sparking trees.

Catherine Zeta-Jones was in this movie? I guess if I had known that at thetime, I might have stayed awake long enough to see her! Do yourself afavor: put on a big purple costume and run around in the jungle for twohours–it’s time better spent than watching this dull movie.(I will qualify that by saying I’m not a Billy Zane fan, and I was neverinto "The Phantom" comics.)

The movie was based on the "Phantom" comics character. I believe thecharacter predated Superman and Batman and happened to be one of myfavorites. The movie has too many problems in my opinion, the first oneis that the script was too campy. While it is true that a movie likethis cannot be taken seriously, this one just basically gave up. Theaction sequence were among the worst action sequences ever. Basicallyit lacked energy. Some more quick cutting by the editor would haveliven things, up this film certainly could use it. The soundtrack hasthat "Raiders of the Lost Ark" wannabe
sound, but it too lack zest andzeal.

Speaking of Raiders, this movie has a plot similar to "Indiana Jonesand The Temple of Doom". The villains are after three skulls withtremendous powers instead of rocks. Anyway, the plot wasn't thatinteresting and there's no tension as the chase towards the skulls goon. And why was he talking to the ghost of his father. As for theacting, well Billy Zane tried his best to be a hero but his Phantom wasjust not very interesting. Catherine Zeta Jones and Kristy Swanson asthe villainess and the love interest fared a little better, but TreatWilliams was miscast as the villain, Dennis Hopper playing any villainis a lot better. Mr. Williams can be a great villain but his villain inthis movie is not over the top enough (the right way to play a villainin this kind of movie.)

The one good thing about this movie is the set designs and the localeswhere the Phantom has his cave were incredible to see. (Thailand Ibelieve, a couple of the island remind me of "The Man with The GoldenGun"). Too bad the writing and direction of the film was a let down.

read comments (0)

The People vs. Larry Flynt

The only thing I thought was worthwhile about this film was TheImportance Of Our Rights As Americans! Other then that this film ispure trash. Larry Flynt is nothing but a primitive scumbag.

Larry is a pig who writes obscene literature and obscene photographs. Iwould not buy Hustler magazine if you paid me. Larry thinks he can makehis own rules and that he does not have to follow the laws of the land.I especially hated it when that photo of Santa Claus is shown. This isdisgusting literature that even for porn is unacceptable. I sure ashell hope he never had kids. He should have just stuck to managingstrip clubs and joints.

It seems that most people who hate Larry Flynt give this a negative reviewand most who like him give it a positive one.

In truth, this isn’t a bad film but has nothing special about it either.Taken as a documentary it’s interesting enough. But as a film it’s not asprovocative or as powerful as it should be. Even the sniper attempt, whichcould’ve been riveting, fell flat. The writing, directing, acting, editing -the entire project seems very half-baked, even down right bad at points. It’s very dull, straightforward and never really takes off. The choralbaptism scenes are so out of place - Forman is clearly still living in theshadow of Amadeus.

To see what this could’ve been like, check out Oliver Stone’s JFK and JimSheridan’s In the Name of the Father.

The rise of Larry Flynt from a little moonshiner to big time smutpeddler is interesting if not a fascinating story. Larry Flynt showshimself as a visionary business man who’s willing to fight for hisright to run his porn business in the face of some powerful oppositionas he pushes the limits of what is socially acceptable.

The story goes thru the up’s and down’s of Larry’s life as he getscharged with indecency and his business seem’s to barely survive theseproblems. He gets the high profile nude pictures of Jacky O’ and hitsthe jack pot, but not without trouble from moral hypocrites likeKeating that seek to undermine his magazine.

His problem with Jerry ‘Fartwell’, a famous preacher,was pretty amusingas HUSTLER magazine decides to run a very sexually lurid, yet obviouslyfictitious story about him. Jerry decides to sue him for personaldistress and Larry counter sues as a result of his story beingre-printed and re-distributed without his copyright permission. Larryloses in court and pays him 200k, but then goes after him again in theSupreme Court.

This movie was aimed to entertain as far as I can see, and I don’t knowhow realistic this portrayal of Larry Flynt is, but I can say that Iwas entertained by lots of good lines, dialog and storyline that keptme interested.

‘Woody’ plays a great portrayal of Larry, and Courtney also performswell, especially as she spirals into a convincing drug addict.

This movie was well made and should appeal to anyone with even a remoteinterest in protecting civil liberties.

8/10

Another film about sexually-perverted, drug addicted not-normal people whoreach success. This is very rare however. The only normal people who arein this film is Edward Norton’s character, reporters and The Supreme Court. This is a bad film. Why did this story have to be told? Why make this afilm? With all due respect to Mr. Larry Flynt, I am not against thepublishing of his Hustler publications. Who hasn’t read or looked at themagazine a time or two. The magazine clearly is for adults only. You buyit or read it by choice. I myself have seen the Jackie O. pictorials andthe "George"/"Georgine" from England pictorials when I was young. Butminors should not see the publications nor this film. Definately for matureadults only. Edward Norton offers a fineperformance in this film. I was not impressed with Woody H. nor CourtneyLove as I feel it was not acting on thier part. They were just playingthemselves.

I guess this film addresses interesting issues involving 1st Amendmentprotections. But to be fully enjoyed it also requires that you haveconsiderable sympathy for Flint(Harrelson), at best a raunchy pornographer.I like the 1st Amendment, but I’m not as sure about Flint, so I found muchof the film uninvolving and at times ridiculous. Next up - a 1st Amendmentfilm about some heart-of-gold Klansman.

The People vs. Larry Flynt is one of those movies that you just expect to befull of tasteless and unnecessary nudity, but that turns out to take itselfa lot more serious than that and ends up being a lot more respectable in theend, kind of like Boogie Nights and not like the Howard Stern movie. Ofcourse, Howard Stern’s Private Parts is in a whole separate category frommovies like Boogie Nights and The People vs. Larry Flynt. You can tell justfrom the title that the Howard Stern movie does not expect to be takenseriously. Howard wants to tell his story in the same 4th-grade humor waythat he runs his radio show, but The People vs. Larry Flynt is a movie thatwants to tell the story of Larry Flynt in a way that presents his life andhis struggles with the religious and moral right in a much more serious way.

Sure, he wears to court everything from diapers made of the American flag tot-shirts that say `F*CK THIS COURT,’ and does everything from spitting watereverywhere to throwing oranges at the judge, but at the same time, the movieas a whole takes the story that it’s telling very seriously, which is whatmakes this such a good film. Larry Flynt, as is one of the overall points ofthe entire film, is not what every American citizen would call an admirableman, but he is protected under the Constitution of the United States just asmuch as everyone else is. What we get in this film is the story of Flynt’sstruggle to prove that he has the right to say and do something that anotherperson or group of people might not like or may find offensive. The filmargues through the story of Larry Flynt against censorship and for the rightto choose for ourselves. That is a fundamental right promised to Americansunder the constitution, and Larry Flynt’s profession tests the limits ofthat law.

Besides being a look into the true workings and limits of the Constitution,the film presents a much more in-depth look into the life of Larry Flynthimself than just about anyone would otherwise have seen. This is a complexman that has had a rough life, and whether you agree with his lifestyle andhis products or not, it sucks to realize that he’s been through so much andis still seen by the American public in such a negative way. This man wasshot by a sniper and confined to a wheelchair for the rest of his life, andthe only thing that most people think about him is that he’s the biggestpervert in the country because he makes his living selling pornography. Ihave no sympathy for him being considered a pervert, because if I learnedanything about him from this movie, it’s that it doesn’t bother him in theslightest to be considered a pervert, but no one should have to be stuck ina wheelchair. Just wondering my entire life who did it would be enough todrive me insane.

It’s not easy to make a good legal thriller. I wouldn’t exactly call ThePeople vs. Larry Flynt a legal thriller, but there is definitely a lot ofthrilling legal content in the film. Edward Norton’s role as Flynt’sattorney, Alan Isaacman, doesn’t even begin to compare to some of his laterroles (such as his towering performances in movies like American History Xand Primal Fear), but he successfully captures the young attorney who hasfound himself involved with an out of control client who behaves like he’sabove the law throughout much of his legal proceedings. Courtney Lovedelivers a shockingly convincing performance as Althea Flynt, Larry’sincreasingly sickly wife, showing the world that she has some talent as anactor and is not just trying to make up for her lack of m
uch talent as amusician.

The People vs. Larry Flynt is not a curiosity piece just because it dealswith such a powerful and famous pornographer, but is rather a fascinatingbiography of this man mixed with the presentation of his involvement withAmerican laws and politics. As Flynt states in the film just before thefinal verdict is released, `If the First Amendment will protect me, then itwill protect all of you. Because I’m the worst.’ Maybe not the most eloquentor noble thing to say, but it’s definitely true.

I think Forman has been out of the movie business for so long that he'sout of touch; he must have thought that the only available "actresses"or candidates to play a major female role were ugly, talentless whorewidows of dead rock stars. I mean, how else can we explain the castingof Courtney Love (and what kind of a dumb name is that…? Her realname must be Deirdre Wiley)? The role of Flint's wife was a good role,and there are real actresses out there that should have been hired forthe job. Not that she was bad - she was mediocre. And any of thoseso-called film-critics out there who thought her "performance" wasterrific shouldn't forget two things: 1) it's easy to make the audiencefeel sorry for a pathetic junkie HIV person, and 2) playing a patheticwhore junkie couldn't have been much of a stretch for her, now couldit; this woman has built her whole career on being a dumb whore junkie.

Another thing about Deirdre: this nauseatingly ugly eight-foot-fourmonster has the kind of awful body that rapists would steer clear from;her legs and arms are bony in the most scary sense of the word, and hersmall, immobile silicon breasts aren't too much of a pretty sight,either. Her first scene in the movie - as a nearly underage stripper -is RIDICULOUS. She has the kind of body that wouldn't land her a job inthe most run-down white-trash strip joints somewhere in the middle ofAlabama. Plus, she doesn't look anything like an underage girl (orthereabouts) in that scene: she looks like she's at least in hermid-twenties.

As far as the film itself is concerned, the big question is just howtruthful and unbiased Forman's portrayal of the characters and theallegedly true events really is. I really wouldn't know since I am notall-too familiar with Flint, apart from seeing him in the occasionalinterview, and the rumour (or fact) that he sodomized a chicken once.So how biased is it (the film, not the chicken)? Judging fromHollywood's past record on bias, the movie must be extremely one-sided,and more fiction than fact. (Nothing new there, unless you're agullible fool.) The film's title itself already suggests whose side thefilm takes - making Larry Flint seem like a martyr - not to mention thefact that he was actively involved in the making of it (which includeda cameo as a judge, where he lay rest to any hopes that he can act - ifthere were any such hopes among anyone).

Having said that, I have absolutely no qualms about the film poking funat organized religion (or any kind of religion, for that matter). Oneof the most amusing moments in the film is when Harrelson says 'no'when asked in court to swear to tell the truth, under oath. He explainsthat he is an atheist, so he can't do it. In fact, there is no doubtthat the highlights of the film all lie in the scenes that take placein court; these scenes are humorous, and wonderfully ridicule thetrials themselves, and the entire judicial system as a whole (theformality, the ludicrousness of it all). However, Forman createssuspicion that he comes from Mars; he sincerely expects the audience tocare about rich and depraved white-trash freaks. Sorry, but apart fromthe HIV and the shooting incident I really don't feel sorry for any ofthose people, and that includes the helpless lawyer, well-played byNorton. Harrelson is quite solid, but not terrific. Casting him makesmore sense than casting Richard Gere, but even he is still far toopretty to play a Jabba the Hut-like character such as Flint. And thecasting of James Carville provides another major annoyance to me; thisman is one of America's most notorious left-wingers, and he clearlycan't act - not even under an experienced (though a little rusty)director. Casting liberal mutants like Carville only serves to make thefilm appear even more biased than it already seems to be. The rest ofthe cast is partly good, and partly not so good. Overall, I expect theacting to be on a somewhat higher level from a director who enjoys thekind of reputation that Forman seems to have.

I never believed anyone could do it, but "The People vs. Larry Flynt" pullsit off, as it were: this movie makes the whole question of pornographyboring, really boring. I am firmly in favor of absolute freedom of thepress and of all kinds of unregulated speech, but maybe there should be somesort of restriction on the production and release of dull movies about,basically, uninteresting public figures and their problems. Probably, LarryFlynt and his travails finally will be of greatest interest toconstitutional scholars, and that is a real irony.

This movie is unusual in that nearly every character on screen is completelyrepugnant, yet they are fascinating and righteous. Larry Flynt is a trueAmerican, warts and all. He must be happy with this portrayal of hislife.

I love this movie because I love my Constitution. H*ll yeah!! I cried withlaughing so hard the first time I saw this, and I’ve cried with emotion afew times since. When the time came to decide whether or not to judge awork"obscene," Justice Hugo Black always reminded his peers, "’Congress shallmake NO law…." And I agree. Nothing more need be said.

read comments (0)

The Mirror Has Two Faces

I started to watch "The Mirror has two faces" because of only one reason:Lauren Bacall. She was one of the very greatest actresses of the golden ageof Hollywood and late Humphrey Bogart’s charming lady in Howard Hawks’classic Philip Marlowe thriller "The Big sleep" (1946) and I was simplyinterested in finding out what was she like 50 years later, at the age of72. I have to admit I was surprised to notice how wonderful she still was.Her performance is the best part of "The Mirror has two faces". The movieitself wasn’t really the type I usually love to watch. Barbra Streisandclearly aimed up to direct a peculiar, refreshingly different kind of aromantic comedy. Truth is this was pretty much a basic love story: veryunsurprising, very traditional, very trivial. Still, this is one of thosemovies you have to watch all the way through when you’ve started. And that’swhat I did.

It appears that conventional paint-by-numbers romantic comedies are theorder of the day. While writing these reviews, I try to be as original aspossible, whenever possible. But when films (particularly rom-coms) are soalike, it’s really a case of changing names and writing pretty much the samething. So while `The Mirror Has Two Faces’ is quite satisfying, it’s hardlyearth shattering or anything we haven’t seen before. The world won’tcollapse if you don’t get to see the film.

One thing that bogs down the standard of these movies is the `playing itsafe’ aspect. The inability to take risks doesn’t guarantee consistentinterest. Also, it more often relies on fluffy, glossy charm as opposed togood laughs and memorable situations.But it has its moments. It also makes some good points in showing thesuperficiality of `love’. But it soon falls into line with the slick `deuxET machina’ ending which may be appropriate with most movies for this genre,but giving the circumstances, it was a wrong move.

Directed by singer/ songwriter/ actress/ newcomer director BarbaraStreisand, there is a gently unpreachy tone throughout, but things are alltoo much in her favour. While she brings a spunky (if not increasinglyfeministic) charm to the proceedings, it’s just not realistic. She takes itupon herself to recreate New York as the perfect haven for frumpy, single,middle-aged women. It’s highly questionable that se should be the `coolest’person in a class of hundreds of college students, and also by able tomemorise all of their names. And it’s true what they say. She looks betterbefore, as opposed to after, her transition to a `sex goddess’.

The support, on the other hand, is quite good all round. While none of themare suited to this genre, they’re good all across the board. The standout isLauren Bacall (on Oscar nominated form) as the typically overbearing mother.And Jeff Bridges finally finds a definition of character with anunderwhelming, but convincing performance.

Certainly not flawless and very much cliched, `The Mirror Has Two Faces’ islatte-light material. But certainly not the worst of its type, this issatisfying for what it’s worth, and most importantly of all, there are acouple of laughs to be had along the way. My IMDb rating:5.5/10.

Cannot believe this movie did not receive more accolades. The team ofBridges and Streisand was phenomenal! Bacall was enchanting as ever.The story line was unique and the dialog superb. Streisand has a uniqueknack for identifying with the "ugly duckling" woman — although she isabsolutely beautiful. Sometimes I think she develops these story linesout of some deep-felt inferiority complex; if that is true, it iscertainly unwarranted.

I look at "Prince of Tides," "The Way We Were," "Yentl," and "FunnyGirl" (which still happens to be my all-time favorite. I truly believethat she shows us this type of movie to make all of us women feelimportant, strong, and yes, even gorgeous…and who’s to say we’re not?

I’ve just saw the movie from HBO and I feel it’s just great! With deepthinking and passion for love and life! Esp. the speech that Rose gavein her class:"Is love a myth or manipulation?!" Well, that’s a goodquestion, right? and I love the way that rose changed and finally foundher confidence and at last she told Alex:"I never worried about how Iwould feel, I only ever thought about you. I only wanted to make youhappy, I never thought I was good enough for you." and but Alex, you’renot good enough for me!" Unfortunately, men in that movie don’t appearclever at all, though charming, like Alex, and cute! Anyone agree withme ? Please contact!

That's the name of a comically mocking song from "Funny Girl" when agroup of yentas discuss the romantic prospects of a young Fanny Brice.It seems the harsh sentiments still resonate with Barbra Streisandnearly thirty years later in her third directorial effort. While sheshows a sure hand in maneuvering the inevitable shenanigans of aromantic comedy, the multi-hyphenated legend lets her intractable needto convey serious-minded, self-esteem-oriented messages weigh this 1996movie down considerably.

At an epic length of 130 minutes, the story, adapted by RichardLaGravenese from a forgotten 1958 French film, is quite slight as itfocuses on Rose Morgan, a wildly popular Columbia literature professorbut also a fortyish, baseball-obsessed frump long in the shadow of herbeautiful sister Claire and glamorous mother Hannah. Her lot in lifeseems crystallized at Claire's wedding when she weds Rose's longtimecrush Alex. Meantime, Columbia mathematics professor Gregory Larkintires of bedding beautiful women who rile him toward irrational actsand wants to find a homely woman with whom he can have a platonic,intellectually-focused friendship and eventually a chaste marriage.Greg places a personals ad to which Claire responds unbeknownst toRose. The budding relationship between Rose and Greg turns on theinevitable moment when Rose seeks intimacy from a disinterested Greg.This leads to a physical transformation and a message-driven finale.

As Rose, Streisand is quite good and sympathetic most of the way, evenif she never looks terribly frumpy and overdoes her character'smagnetic speaking skills in the lecture hall. Like the yearning Barbraof long ago, she achieves a palpable sadness when she feels humiliatedon her wedding night. However, once Rose transforms herself,Streisand's ego takes over as her blonde highlights and aerobicizedbody bring back the execrable, soft-focus treatment from the lovemakingscenes in "The Prince of Tides". Looking more like his uni-browedbrother and father as he grows older, Jeff Bridges plays Greg as abefuddling stereotype who grows more unrealistic as the story evolves.

At the time of release, Lauren Bacall received all sorts of kudos asHannah, though it is a relatively superficial performance in a showyrole except for a wonderfully brave, make-up-free scene where Hannahadmits to Rose how she valued her beauty while it lasted. Mimi Rogersprovides sharp bite as Claire, while Pierce Brosnan lends the necessarysmarminess to the shallow Alex and George Segal (Streisand's one-timeco-star in "The Owl and the Pussycat") is relegated to a dispensablebest-pal role. As with her previous two films, Streisand imbues herfilm with lots of background music though this time it feels somewhatmore intrusive. What she does achieve is the romanticism in tone andself-image reinforcement she obviously felt a need to convey. The DVDcame out only two years later in 1998 and consequently has no extras tooffer.

I just saw this film again the first time since 1996. The productionvalues for this film were great, but the sentiments are false. First Ihave to say that the acting is superb, especially Streisand and Bacall.Their mother-daughter revelation scene is wonderful, a gem shared by 2consummate actresses.

Here's the dishonesty: In the first
half, we see that everyone who'sattractive is also defective in some way. Husband is a jerk, sexless, abore, mother jealous and vain, sister has no personality. In fact, whyis Streisand so madly in love with a man who's such a jerk? Streisandshines as funny, intelligent, personable, well-liked by everyone. Andour view of what's pretty has changed a lot since Streisand came alongin the 60's. Meryl Streep's long nose or Jolie's oversize lips wouldnever have been acceptable before Streisand. OK, she doesn't know howto dress, but is certainly printed as attractive. The camera, as usual,loves her. And in real life Streisand has always been attractive toattractive men.

After showing us that physical beauty is not that important, the filmthen goes on to prove that the same woman, made more physicallybeautiful, can now attract her cold jerk of a husband and her sister'sshallow ex. Husband even tells her that he's always found her sexy,it's just that he hadn't been interested. Such inconsistency in thewriting.

This movie has rhythm and I like that! Every line has a beat of is own!TheCD is fabulous! I have both the video and the CD. Multi talented, BarbraStreisand (Yentl, Funny Lady), directed and played Rose Morgan, aprofessor of Romantic Literature at Columbia University, who knows how toteach well. You can tell that her students are enjoying her classesbecauseof her teaching methods. She is very likable, intelligent, witty, andwearsold fashioned outfits, which by the way are my favorite costumes in themovie. She loves football, loves to eat, (who doesn’t?) and lives withmanipulative mother Hannah Morgan, Lauren Bacall (Key Largo) who wasnominated for an Oscar for this part. She has a sister Claire, MimiRogers,who is supposed to be prettier than Rosie (I think not!) and has stolenRose’s beau Alex, Pierce Brosnan (James Bond) and married him. Clairesets Rose up on a blind date because she finds an add in the newspaper ofaman looking for a date, who turns out to be Gregory Larkin, also aprofessor(of mathematics) at Columbia University who is very boring, played byJeffBridges (The Fabulous Baker Boys) who’s best friend is Henry Fine, GeorgeSegal (Lost and Found) a lots of male perspective on their dialogue.Rosie’s best friend is Doris, Brenda Vaccaro (Midnight Cowboy) the friendeverybody likes to have. They are confidants, they have fun together, theybreak their diets together, they order extra salad dressing together. Hermother is beautiful but self-centered, she keeps saying: "I raised adaughter, I buried a husband, I made my coffee".

Favorite Scenes: Rose’s hair piece falling off; the restaurant scene wherethere are two mirrors and the camera shows the two sides of the mirror;Roserooting for her favorite team; the favorite bite dinner, the odd numbersofcufflinks, the next door neighbor.

Favorite quotes paraphrased "When my date takes me home and I don’t hearthe philharmonic in my head, I dump him."; "A wedding is the final sceneofthe fairy tale, they never tell you what happens after. They never tellyouthat Cinderella drove the Prince crazy with her obsessive need to cleanthecastle and that she missed her day job."; "Curls! I tried that once, Ilooked like Shirley Temple on crack."; "You are the mother of the bridenotthe opening act."; "I will have your birth certificate blown up as aChristmas card."; her mother saying. "I should never have encouraged youtospeak."

I was so pleased as I read the previous posts for this film and waspleasantly surprised to learn that the "Death To Barbra Streisand"Knell that seems to pervade Hollywood seems to be limited to justHollywood and there are people out there who keep an open mindregarding Streisand and her work. Streisand mounts one of her mostentertaining and romantic films with THE MIRROR HAS TWO FACES, abeguiling story about a romance between two lonely college professorsthat ends up turning into a platonic marriage. Yes, you can see howthis is going to end thirty minutes into it, but the journey to thatthe ending is such a pleasure. Yes, despite Rose Morgan’s Plain Janedemeanor, this is a bit of vanity piece for Streisand, but not so muchas YENTL was. It’s a very "Barbra" film with very "Barbra" themes andmessages that we expect from her and for those of us who love Barbara,that’s OK. Streisand has surrounded herself with a superb supportingcast. Lauren Bacall was robbed of an Oscar for her performance asRose’s vain, insensitive mother and Mimi Rogers was amusing as Rose’svain, insensitive sister. I loved the scene at Rogers’ wedding whereshe threatens to have her mother’s birth certificate blown into abirthday card and Bacall dryly replies, "I should never have encouragedyou to speak." Pierce Brosnan and Brenda Vaccarro also offer somestrong moments. But the most pleasant surprise for me in this film isthe performance by Jeff Bridges as the slightly nerdy calculusprofessor, Gregory Larkin. Bridges makes this character so likable andinjects him with a perfect combination of nerdiness and sexiness at thesame time. Very few actors can pull that combo off, but Bridges does itso effortlessly. You just want to take Gregory in your arms and say,"It’s OK, baby, it’s OK…" Streisand has directed this film with asurprising amount of quiet sensibility and has given us an albeitpredictable, totally winning romantic comedy.

The bad reviews I have read about "The Mirror Has Two Faces" were actuallyabout Streisand’s fingernails, attitudes, makeup, etc.. The movie is indeedfine, it is charming and amusing. Barbra is great, though ridiculous in somescenes trying to pass herself off as a beautiful young girl. To sum it up,"The Mirror Has Two Faces" has its flaws but overall it is a watchable film,mostly due to Ms. Streisand. Jeff Bridges’ performance is one the worst onesI have ever seen. What a miscast !!!

Romance-comedy much in the vain of "The Ugly Duckling,"that is played by Streisand, who does the possibleby once again miscasting herself as a frumpy waif, whileBridges struggles through his lines like a 20 year oldon prom night. Bacall is the only stunning thingin the entire film. Her angelic presence is heavenlycompared to what Barbra is doing on the screen. Barbradirected again and she’s still a good director…shejust has to stop casting herself in her own pictures.

read comments (0)

The Long Kiss Goodnight

I watched this movie because I like most Gina Davis and Samuel L.Jackson movies. Calling the movie "simply dreadful" might be anunderstatement. I had trouble suspending my disbelief for more than 30seconds at a time. Take two quality actors like Davis and Jackson, putthem in a contrived, excessively violent, and implausible plot and theresult is a BIG STINKER. I hope that neither Davis or Jackson realizedhow bad this script was while they were filming it. I watched thismovies on a DVR which saved me from watching the commercials and Istill feel as if my time was stolen from me. Comcast had rated themovie *** which fooled me. I never waste my time on anything less than***. This movie would be overrated at an * and 1/2.

This is one of those excellent examples of why nobody should everequate an actor's role with their real-life persona. Actors andactresses, I once read, are similar prostitutes: they will take anyrole, if the money is good enough. The example here is Geena Davis. Inthis film, she's ultra-profane and violent. Finish this film and pickup a "Stuart Little" DVD and you'll see Davis as the sweetest personyou'd want to meet, a perfect mother and the essence of wholesomeness.Pick up another Geena Davis film and she's back to being a foul-mouthed pig.

No wonder actors are so mentally messed up!

Davis is like Mother Teresa, however, compared to Samuel L. Jackson inthis movie. Jackson profanes almost every sentence. He's just plaincrude in here as "Mitch." After about a half hour, though, Daviscatches up to him in the profanity department. Sadly, it makes bothcharacters unappealing. Too bad, because some of the action scenes -and there are tons of them - are awesome. However, there are just manywhich are just plain ludicrous with no credibility. "Action trash" isan apt description another viewer used, describing this movie.

Summary: overdone violence, insane left-wing conspiracy theories andcartoon-like, unlikable lead characters who spew 50 f-words and 20blasphemes. Once again, out-of- touch Hollywood still has no clue thatthe average moviegoers aren't in the sewer as they are andconsequently, this movie was a box-office flop and lost millions ofdollars.

I don’t see how even action fans could appreciate this. Somebody reallymessed up on the screenplay here, and it’s utterly unbelievable that thedirector of "Die Hard 2" would waste his time with this. Terriblescreenplay and dumb jokes combine to completely ruin this movie. 2/10.

The story is nonsense of course and relies on the chemistry and wit ofJackson and Davis (well….mainly Jackson). Something about Davisdiscovering that she is really a CIA convert agent that lost her memory etcetc…. However this is saved by two things 1- Jackson and 2- bigover-the-top action scenes.

There’s not too much to read into the film - it does what it says it does. Davis is ok but her sudden shift in character is kind of hard to swallow. Jackson seems to be making fun of the whole proceedings and makes the filmmore fun (witness him being pushed out of a car and lie on the floor smokinguntil he get picked up!), but the bad guy’s bring sufficient menace toproceedings to keep it just about credible.

Overall a good action movie with enough spectacle to get past the plot. Onepoint - we don’t all need happy endings. In the first draft Jackson dies atthe end, after testing this was changed so that he lives. However if youwatch the bit where he gets "killed" there’s no way he walks away fromthat!

Miles better than the other Davis/Harlin project CutthroatIsland!

Maybe 15. Thats all the time you can devote to this paint by numbers bombzbefore you are out of there. It boasts a computer generated script, with alot of explosions. I wonder if this could have possibly made any money.These things look so expensive to make and they are terrible, so they cannotpossibly give any sort of ROI. If as I suspect, they cleverly use stockfootage from other films for the action sequences, then it all makes sense.Geena Davis? puleeze. Jackson is ok, I like him. Maybe he or his agent willlearn how to read a script one of these days. I think Showtime needs to showit more than the 40 times per week it is currently scheduled. I want to seeif my television will actually melt.

This has to be one of the reasons why I don't go to the cinema anymore. If you want American rubbish, this is it in spades. This filmwill appeal to people with an IQ of zero. The action sequences areabout the only thing in this movie the Director seems to be able tohandle,the rest is like watching traffic go by.The script isridiculous,the heroine is dead one minute,alive the next,dead againetc. Samuel Jackson is a talented actor, but even he can't salvagegarbage. Davis is an crazed assassin,then a loving Mother,how is itgoing to play when she gets back to normality? The answer is toopathetic for words.There is no real characterisation in this film,justa series of violent and nasty events. Films like this are becoming alltoo common in American cinema,shove in a couple of stars, a big budgetfor special effects,and hope the public won't notice the sillystoryline and the banal dialogue. Geena Davis is suffering from memoryloss;quite right,I forgot all about this junk one minute after itfinished.

Geena Davis plays a former govt assassin who now has amnesia and livesas an ordinary single mom. Now right there you have problems since sucha phenomenon is a Hollywood fiction. People do not lose their identityof self unless their brain is so damaged they can't do anything.Anyway, govt agents who thought she was dead find out she's alive andwant to kill her. Slowly her memory comes back and she turns intosuperwoman and the action begins.

And there is plenty of action but so much of the story is justpreposterous. I could mention a million holes in this film but you getthe idea. Best thing in the movie is geena. I've always thought she hada quirky kind of good lucks but midway thru the film she cuts her hairand dies it blonde and looks gorgeous.

Interesting detail in the movie is that the govt mentions that the the1993 terror attack on the WTC was engineered by the CIA. This movie wasmade in 1996, five years before 9-11 but everybody with a brain knowsthat was an inside job too.

"The Long Kiss Goodnight" plays like "True Lies" meets "Total Recall".No bad thing and mostly well-handled, but what lets it down is thethird act.

After a lot of action, blood, swearing and zippy one-liners the filmbogs down in a predictable finale mire, involving one of the most inertscreen moppets of modern times. Yvonne Zima was about 7 at the time ofthis film and could not act. Having the story revolve around a kid withall the screen presence of workbench was A Bad Thing.

Why did a child have a central role in this movie anyway? It'schock-full of people doing bad things and swearing fit to make atrooper blush. This is no family-orientated action blockbuster. Apartfrom little Yvonne's lack of acting skill, I also found myself steppingback and wondering what she was doing in this blood-splatteredswearfest anyway. Especially, it has to be said, when you find out whothe kid's father is. This unconvincing revelation leads on to one ofthe lamest action movie moments EVER. Shame on all concerned forcommitting it to celluloid.

Shane Black and Renny Harlin deserve The Big Stick for this one, folks.The screenwriter and director literally lost the plot at the end ofthis film. Both are experienced and successful action veterans butneither of them did anything to sort out the woefully preposterous andclichéd third act of TLKG.

Another crew member who needs a slap is Tricia Sawyer, who was GeenaDavis's makeup "artist&quo
t;. Davis's transition from Suzie Homemaker to SpyBitch is a pretty startling one for all the wrong reasons. The PEROXIDESKULL PANDA OF DEATH look is never an easy one to pull off.

Let me start with the obvious. Ms. Davis is a truly attractive womanwho is also and primarily a truly terrible actress. In some movies itis possible for the movie to distract us from her but in this case themovie is pretty bad and no distraction. I know that use girls shouldstick together but this is the very last time I will try to give herthe benefit of the doubt. There is no doubt. The movie is bad and sheis worse. Even the music (which is the best of a bad deal) doesn'tprovide solace. Run, don't walk, in the opposite direction. Poor SamuelJackson, sorry you didn't get that advice earlier. I'm with him, Ican't say much else with a straight face. Awful, that I can say.

Spoilers herein.

I resaw this film recently, ahead of schedule. I’m being rather methodicalin walking through films for study and comment and had TLKG on twolists:

–the `big mistakes of filmmakers because they star the women they sleepwith’ list. Turns out that this is a long and fascinating collection (Mamet,De Palma, Welles, Besson…). There are some interesting things to say inthis regard, but I’ll save them for "Cutthroat" when I get toit.

and

–the sexy actresses, forty and over list (though she was 39 when this wasreleased).

But I got to it early because of some professional work related to why somany Arabs believe that the CIA or Mossad were behind the 9-11 World TradeCenter bombing. American children can readily sort out fantasy from realityit seems, but much of the world cannot — and this film features the nowobscene notion of killing 4,000 innocents and framing Arab militants to getincreased funding for intelligence operations.

read comments (0)

The Juror

I’m sitting here watching a movie Trial By Jury, from 1994, and it haspretty much an identical story line. William Hurt even calls himself theteacher. Single mom, on a jury for a mafia case is terrorized to ensurethat she will return the "proper" verdict. There are totally differentwriting credits for these two films. I’m real curious as to who won thelawsuit for theft of creative material….

The Juror stands out for one reason and one reason only: the performance ofAlec Baldwin. It is simply the most embarrassing, over-the-top, hammy atteptat acting since Faye Dunaway embarrassed herself in The Wicked Lady (1983).Truly one of the very worst performances of the decade.

The story is routine and uninteresting. Twelve jury members are about toconvict a mob godfather for a heinous crime. They are all relatively unitedin their belief that the accused is guilty. Then a Mob hitman (Baldwin)begins to pester one lady juror (Demi Moore), insisting that she must changeher vote and get the other jurors to change theirs. If she fails, her familyand friends will be at risk.

Moore seems to have been the first choice action woman of the 90s, but fromthis film it’s decidedly hard to see why see earned such a label. Herperformance is indifferent, and she conveys no particular emotion. The onlycast member to do anything with their part is Anne Heche, but she isall-too-sadly killed off midway into the flick. The tension that shoulddominate the film slackens pretty much as soon as things get underway, andwe’re left with a cold and uninvolving affair that seems to drag oninterminably. The climax, which mysteriously occurs in the Central Americanrainforest (why bother with this change of locale so late in the film?) isalso uninvolving and hackneyed. As 90s thrillers go, lots of them were bad,but this is still a contender for the worst of all.

A really good example of how over-rated and over-paid Demi Moore was,and this was probably just a little past her heyday anyway. She wasnever strong enough to carry a movie. All a bit of a Hollywood mystery.I mean, does anyone even think about her now, or has any memory of agreat performance? All that comes to mind was a sexy tho short-livedperformance with Michael Douglas in Disclosure, and that's about it.How on earth did she get so far as she did, to become a difficultHollywood diva with the nickname Gimme More (money)? A clue lies in howcanny and controlling she was not to be seen topless as a teenager inBlame It on Rio even tho her friend's character in the film does. Shehas a great movie face, but that's just not enough. Without her, andwith just about any other major female lead, this would have been abetter movie. Thank the lord her time is up.

While this movie had an interesting plot, it was carried out very poorly. Alec Baldwin’s character was just too psychotic to be convincing. The story became predictable and the cinematography was terrible. yuck.

Although this movie has many fatal flaws, I do have to admit (reluctantly)that I do like this film, especially some of its elements.

The actual happenings may be a bit far-fetched, with The Teacher going tosuch lengths on ONE person and concentrating whole-heartedly on that ONEperson is a bit increduluous considering the substancial evidence mountedagainst Boffano, the mob boss. Certainly if I was The Teacher, I wouldn’tbeputting all my hopes on only one person, trying to convince them that analready guilty person in the minds of the jury to be innocent, especiallyconsidering the outcomes of the trial if Annie failed to convince herfellowjury to vote ‘not guilty’.

However, what I do like about this movie is the incredible cast. DemiMoore,Alec Baldwin, Anne Heche and Joseph Gorden-Levitt are all really good intheir roles. I thought Alec Baldwin’s performance was really really good(emphasis on the ‘really’). I don’t particularly know why I think so, buthis psycotic, sociopathic ‘thing’ was superb. My favourite part in thisstory is when The Teacher (Alec Baldwin) asks Annie (Demi Moore)when theyare in the woods, whether she believes that he is capable of giving himselfwhole-heartedly to love. He then goes on to say that it’s a shame you hateme so much, because I do love you (I don’t know the exact words). Thatwarped sense of loving someone you aren’t supposed to is what I love aboutthis movie.

Yes I do realise that the whole movie is extremely predictable andextremelyunlikely to occur in the real world. But then again, there are plenty ofmovies which are extremely unlikely to occur in the real world. That iswhatmovies are about. If everything in films were a reflection on ‘the realworld’ there would be no such thing as fiction and films as indeedeverything would inadvertely become documentaries. As for the predictableending, there are heaps of succussful, predictable formula films out therethat thrive on that predictability element.

This is an ok thriller,I have seen worse,but also better.The acting is not great,but I have seen worse.The story has some suspense and it got me to sit through the wholemovie.To sum it up,this is an average movie.

WOW, I really liked this film, i didn’t think i would.I don’t really know alot about Demi Moore, but after watching her in this, iwill definitely purchase more of her films, she was completely convincing asa mother who enters a court case involving the mafia, and ends up on therehit list, but it was the story that gripped me, alot of mafia type moviesare long drawn out sagas, that are hard to follow, this one is muchdifferent as it takes you away from the usual mafia story, and cosentratesmore on the relationship of the mother and her son, which softens the wholetone, and also the hitman has a real purpose, and is one of the maincharacters played by Alec Baldwin, who is brilliant in any part he’splaying, he really is evil in this one, but him and Demi worked welltogether, just a shame there was no romance.

Seeing as THE JUROR revolves round a plot of someone trying to convince ajury to find a man accused of murder innocent I was expecting somethingalong the lines of 12 ANGRY MEN and you do not believe how foolish I feelwriting this paragraph . I wish to throw myself at the mercy of anyonereading this and beg their forgiveness . I do have slightly mitigatingcircumstances - The trailers on TV for THE JUROR actually did give theimpression that it was going to a tense court room drama , but seeing asDemi Moore was the star this is no excuse . After all a tense court roomdrama would have needed a good script and some intense acting , neither ofwhich can be found in a film containing the words " Starring Demi Moore "

What`s that you`re saying ? You`re ready to cut me a deal if I offer someinformation ? Well here goes … It`s not a court room drama at all , it`sa very dumb thriller and tries to hide its dumbness by twisting and turningas it goes along which just becomes ridiculous . It starts in a bedroom inAmerica and ends in some temple in the jungle somewhere . Oh and there`ssome twisted romance sub plot too . Just think this could have been quitegood if the producers had decided to focus on the heroine trying to get herfellow jurors onto her side in an open and shut case , and it goes withoutsaying there`s a massive cop out where the script decides to forgo anyexplanation why the jury changed their mind about the accused . It`s theproducers you want to cross examine not me

The Juror is one of those movies I saw a long time ago and moderatelyliked and (tried) to watch again recently and couldn’t get through 5minutes.

I really think there are just some movies that cannot be viewed morethen once and this is one. I personally couldn’t remember much about itthus my wanting to see it again-usually a really good movie CAN beviewed multiple times or at least twice. There was a lot of overactin
gin this as well-everyone just tries to hard and once you know what’scoming in this, it’s tough to sit through a second time.

Still, it isn’t at all the worst movie out there-and this is liked bymany I know. Any major fans of this movie may want to check out a moviethat’s similar in plot but lesser known: "trial by Jury" that, to merates slightly better then The Juror although not by much. The storylines are very similar.

If you have two hours to kill (or whack, in the mob nomenclature), thenfeel free to watch The Juror, a brain-dead thriller that is bestwitnessed on TV (you don't have to pay for it and you can pretty-muchtell when the cussing, sex, and bloodletting are being snipped out).

It's an easy synopsis, here–mob boss orders a hit, Alec Baldwincarries it out, there's a trial, Demi Moore gets threatened in order tokeep her from voting "guilty," biff-boom-bang.

By the end, there are lots of bullet holes in the bad guys, Moore hasturned from cutesy artist to Dirty Harriet, and, if you're an AnneHeche or Alec Baldwin fan, you are wondering if you should rent thisnonsense to see what all happened in the sack.

Since I am neither, I'll stick with the butchered-for-TV version andhope that not all juries are as stupid as the one Demi served on.

read comments (0)

The Island of Dr. Moreau

I have no idea why so many people say this movie sucked. It did notsuck. In fact, I thought it was one of the better movies I have seen.Now, unfortunately, I have not seen the original Island of Dr. Moreau,but if it's better than this, it must be one of the best movies evermade. And, contrary to popular commentary, Marlin Brando played hisrole better than any actor I can think of. He was the father of thecreatures, and he acted like it. And that little guy. Oh, he was great.I just wonder who they got to play him. But the whole movie was reallyworth the two hours I spent watching it on TV. And it's worth the timeto rent it.

But remember, the best movies are the ones you go into unexpectedly andfind out for yourself if they are good. Don't go by what anybody says,heck not even me. All you can do is watch the movie and form an opinionfor yourself. That's the only way one can truly enjoy something.

After warning against the horrors of Lawnmoyer man 2, I felt the urge tocontinue my crusade and let my feelings be known of the second worst film Ihave ever sat through.This film puts the aw(dear god no!!) into awful. Stay away!

0/10.

This film not only had bad special-effects, it also had terrible make-upeffects by Stan Winston. This was his worst effort yet. Aside from thetechnicalities, it was also a pointless, annoying film. Nothing surprisedme and I left the theater completely disappointed.

It’s ironic that the coolest opening credits of that film year give way toone of the most disappointing movies of the decade. It’s a sad commentarywhen you have people like Brando, Kilmer, Thewlis and Frankenheimer, andyouend up with a silly flick that lumbers into a final third that’s ashackneyed and trite as anything you’re likely to see. So…rent the movie,watch the opening credit sequence, rewind, then watch somethingelse.

I sat down on my sofa, turned my DVD player on and began to watch "TheIsland of Dr. Moreau," a film by John Frankenheimer.(Director also ofRonin)The film began with an amazing background of genetics, the music isalso brilliant, running through the cast and crew of thisexpedition.Then in the middle of the pacific, David Thewlis lay in his raft, after hewas involved in a plane crash on route to Jakarta. He is rescued and takenon board a vessel carrying none other than Val kilmer who plays Montgomery.he return with him to Moreau’s island, where there are some brilliantcameraangles. he is locked up in a bedroom and kept prisoner, until he escapesandviews the delivery of a monsters baby, who also monsters are delivering. Itbecomes apparent of Moreau’s experiments of cross genetic mutation and infollows a tribe of Moreau’s unigue children all with features of anotheranimal. the Hyena of the group’s friend is killed by Moreau’s son and isburn’t. Hyena finds the remains of a chip which is used to shock theanimals. He begins to form alliances with other fellow mutants and wage’s abattle against the doctor. There are many explosions in this film alongwithgood plot twists. the film ends with Thewlis leaving the ill-fated islandina raft/dinghy recounting his thoughts of his involvement on the island.Unfortunately, not all of Brandos talents are shown in this film due to hispremature departure, leaving Thewlis and Fairuza balk to continue the film,while Kilmer goes insane and ends up being shot while impersonating thedoctor in his white robes in the animals underlair. Thewlis is brilliant,kilmer provides some good momentum in the film and Brando and Balk go atreat. Another actor, Ron pearlman also desevres some recognition in thisgripping film. Although the film is 92 minutes long which is short for thestoryline, the film is still wonderful. If you do see the DVD, buy it.Although unlike Region 1 which has Interviews, trailers and an extendedruntime by 8 minutes, Region 2 has no extra’s to moan of, but on it’s ownthe film is still marvellous. See the film if you have the time and youwillhave a few questions at the end to puzzle over. An overall good Adventuretreat. 7/10 rating. Email me if you want to know more about thefilm.

I like the work of John Frankenheimer. I think the cast was more orless to die for. And H.G. Wells wrote some of the most enduring talesof science fiction. so why does this movie feel like a cheap rip-off of"Jurasic Park"? David Thewlis is a dependable actor in his role of aU.N. official lost at sea. Val Kilmer steals every frame he speaks inwith his role of the resident doctor, who slowly goes insane as theanimals take over. Marlon Brando is like a nicer, but crazier versionof Colonel Kurtz. But somewhere in the midst of the movie, it all getslost. It disintegrates into something of the animal that is depicted inthe film, savage, brutal, and unappealing to the rational mind.

4/10

I actually liked this movie. I saw this before I read any reviews forit. I don’t see what made it SO bad that it deserved a 4 out of 10? Iwould have expected a 6 or 7. I’m not saying this movie was great butit was entertaining. The cast was pretty good, Marlon Brando, ValKilmer, Fairuza Balk, David Thewlis, and though the acting wasn’t greatbut not the worst, maybe acting:6/10. The story was like the book,personally I liked it but if you don’t like science-fiction then youprobably wouldn’t like it. The makeup and special effects were awesome.Overall I would rate this movie a 7 out of 10. I don’t see the reasonfor anything below a 5.

Maybe most critics panned "The Island of Dr. Moreau" because directorJohn Frankenheimer has been known for the likes of "The ManchurianCandidate", so everyone expected more from him. The truth is, the movieisn't any kind of masterpiece, but not bad at all. Granted, some scenesdo seem a little silly (and Marlon Brando looks weird wearing amuumuu), but the movie does take a scathing look at science. Maybe inlater years we'll take a more serious look at the movie. Brando, ValKilmer, David Thewlis, Fairuza Balk and Ron Perlman all do a prettygood job in their roles.

So are YOU ready to try and turn animals into humans?

This film is proof positive of what a mediocre actor Marlon Brando is. Thismovie defies description. It is like the Mardi Gras with Marlon camping itup in diapers, a mumu and kabuki make-up. The scene where he plays thepiano with one of his creatures is something out of John Waters. Myfavorite scene is when he sits with a bucket on his head while his daughterfills it with ice. I’m sure the director hope that the chill my startle aperformance out of him. Brando is an actor who has given a handful ofextraordinary performances due in most part to the fine writing that he wasgiven. When one looks at his career it is loaded with bombs in which hesleepwalks through. It is easy to see why he is so admired by the currentgeneration of actor’s his lazy, undisciplined and self-indulgent behavior isthe same traits that many of them have adopted. One must go back and lookat Spencer Tracey, James Stewart and Barbara Stanwyck to see actors whosework was a craft whose professionalism and dedication is apparent in all theperformances. Val Kilmer is execrable. And John Frankenheimer should havenever put his name to this debacle. It’s an embarrassment across the board.Shame. Shame.

The Island of Dr Moraeu is one of the best HG Wells novels, and it has beenfilmed quite successfully as Island of Lost Souls and under its originaltitle in 1977. This version is a stain on the book; indeed, it is a stain onthe cinematic releases of 1996.

The story of a shipwereck survivor (Thewlis) ending up on a weird islandpeopled by half human, half animals creatures created by experimentations byDr Moreau (Brando) retains some of its old interest, but is criticallyundone by the childish tone and truncated editting.

Frankenheimer has dir
ected some wonderful films, but here he seems lost(either that, or the studio has tampered with his production and made a messof it). The actors appear to have barely any understanding of what’s goingon. Worst of all, the monsters don’t come across in the intended fashion asexamples of science gone awry: instead, they look like childish creationsaimed at the toy shop market.

read comments (0)