The Replacements

Dear sweet lord, i didn’t think a movie could be so devoid of anythingreedeeming. Between the horrible acting performance turned in by Keanu"Whoa" Reeves and the blandest, most predictable plot line ever, theReplacements does not entertain for a single solitary second. It isunbelievable that with such a rehashed, recycled plot, that thewriter/director could still manages to leave so many flaws in the film.Rule # 1 if you are going to write a film about football, at least knowsomerules, at one point in this abomination of a film the Washington Sentinelsneed to retrieve an onside kick to stay alive, of course they in fact dothis and they advance the ball forward: NFL rule the kicking team can notadvance the ball if they recover it on an onside kick. Directly afterthisShane Falco, yes the quarterback is on the field on an onside kick,tackleshis own man and then calls a timeout: NFL rule the clock stop after thereturn man is tackled. These are just a few mistakes to harp on, but iwanted to point out that the basis for this film is football at least thedirector could know the rules. The football flaws pale in comparison totheatroscious characters in this film. Every single characater in the entiremovie is a stereotype, example Orlando Jones character is the incrediblyfast guy with no hands, ala Little Giants, there’s the drunkard, smoking,welsh kicker who is scrawny but still a badass, there are of course someofthe gansta african americans, a sumo wrestler!, the religious nice guy whoonly wants to catch one touchdown, and low and behold he catches it andshatter his knee on the play, it brings a tear to my eye. I gurantee ifthis idea was given to a drunk, semi retarded monkey he could of in factproduced a far more original, believable, and entertaining film than thenimrods who came up with this horrendous "comedy". The only thingslightlycomedic in this whole film was the fact that an esteemed actor like GeneHackman would agree to taked this role. 0/10 the worst movie ever. Ifyoulike football don’t see it, if you like Keanu Reeves don’t see it, If youlike sports drama don’t see it, if you like comedies don’t see it, if youlike movies in general don’t see it, if you like performing mysterysciencetheatre over a pile of crap film, by all means see it.

This is a very unoriginal cross between Major League and NecessaryRoughness, with less believable characters. Characters have no depth andKeanu Reeves has the same expression on his face throughout. I don’t thinkthat Gene Hackman has more than a couple pages of dialogue in the entiremovie. But then he doesn’t need to, the entire movie’s one big cliche. Theending can’t be ruined, because you can see it coming 90 minutes away. Justall-around bad.

THE REPLACEMENTS / (2000) 1/2* (out of four)

By Blake French:

I have always thought professional sports players make way too much moneyfor what they do. I hoped "The Replacements" would make a strong statementabout their greed and selfishness. "You’re being paid to play," a coachexplains to his replacement team, "and I want you to remember that, becausethe men whose places you’ve taken forgot that a long time ago." Withdialogue like that, we can explore a funny, biting satire about a socialissue.

"The Replacements" isn’t the movie I was hoping for and it does not make astand on greed or anything else. It’s a poorly constructed, shamelesslycontrived sports comedy/drama/romance about how a football team can win abig game. It’s also about love. The main star, Keanu Reeves, who has donemuch better than this, falls for a less than charming cheerleader/bar owner.We learn this in one of the film’s first sequences, where the two love birdsstare into each other’s eyes as boastful romantic music explodes on thesoundtrack. This is the kind of movie where the music sets the tone for thescene instead of the scene setting the tone for the music. Without themusic, this movie would not have any tone. Not that the music makes muchdifference. It still has no tone.

It’s difficult making a decent sports movie because it must involve theaudiences in the story both on and off the field. Oliver Stone could noteven do it successfully in "Any Given Sunday," but he did a lot better thanthis. Howard Deutch ("The Odd Couple II") does not stand a chance with thissheepish, cheap screenplay by Vince McKewin. The movie does not even knowabout the technical aspects of football. Although I would not know afootball from a bowling ball, here are a few factual errors the fine folksat the Internet Movie Database discovered:

· The team has to hire new cheerleaders when the players go on strike,presumably because the cheerleaders are unionized as well. However, we neversee any cheerleaders on the players’ picket lines.

· Falco leaves the team when Martel crosses the picket-line, but most NFLteams carry at least two but usually three quarterbacks in case ofinjury–Falco would only move to second string, and it would be the secondor third string quarterback cut.

· According to NFL regulations, a quarterback (or any other player) is notpermitted to remove their helmet in the huddle. Falco does this severaltimes throughout the movie.

· During an extra point attempt, the clock is running. In real football, theclock is stopped during extra point attempts.

Gene Hackman gives the movie it’s only light as veteran coach JimmyMcGinty. His team, the Washington Sentinels, must win three of their lastfour games to make the professional football playoffs. A player’s strikeoccurs; those greedy SOB’s want more money, as if five million a year isn’tquite enough to cover the cost of agents, layers, and insurance on Ferraris.McGinty agrees to hire replacement players. "They’ve all played footballsomewhere, not all of them in the pros. But they all have something uniqueto bring to the game. We’re gonna take those people and try to put togethera winning team. If nothing else, they should be fun to watch," he explains.

Scene after scene, "The Replacements" proves itself incompetent andfoolish. The scenes jump between angry players, romantic struggles, and footballgames. The film spews much unfitting humor into the mix. In once scene, awoman recklessly drives through oncoming traffic at high speeds. This is acontrived, recycled visual joke that isn’t developed or expanded upon. Itdidn’t work in "Speed 2: Cruise Control" and it doesn’t work here. "TheReplacements" also attempts for laughs through the cheer leading team. Thisis also a shallow sight gag; it does not advance the plot nor does it coveran important niche. There’s even a running joke where the football playerssing and dance to a popular alternative music number. It makes you wonderwhat you did to deserve such painful torture.

I have been reviewing movies for over five years now. I write four to fivefilm critiques per week-many negative. Even after doing this for so long,and sitting through so many terrible motion pictures, it still deeplydiscourages me to screen a movie as bad as "The Replacements," when I knowthis kind of material has potential. I not only feel sorry for theunfortunate viewers who sit through this junk, but also for the filmmakerswhereas it takes a lot of time and effort to make a movie, regardless of howbad. This was a waste of their time as well.

I question why actors like Reeves and especially Hackman would accept suchroles. In one scene, a character states: "I’ve seen monkey-s**t fights atthe zoo that are more organized than this." One could also say the samething about this movie.

If you want a boring, contrived hackneyed piece of garbage that doesn’thavea single laugh in it…then this is your movie.

If you want to hear such eyerolling and retching dialouge such as "Painheals and chicks dig scars but glory lasts forever"..
.then this is yourmovie.

If you want to see a movie in which women are portrayed as sex objects andbimbos…by all means, THIS is your movie.

If you want to see Gene Hackman and Keanu Reeves go through the motionswhile slumming it…then this is your movie.

If you want to see a half decent Howard Deutsch movie, go and rent SOMEKINDOF WONDERFUL.

If you want to hear a great rendition of Gloria Gaynor’s "I WILL SURVIVE",go and rent MAN ON THE MOON and watch Tony Clifton singit.

If you want to see a movie about plucky and scrappy underdogs who go fromthe doghouse to the penthouse…go rent Major League.

If you want to see a good football movie….leave this stinkbomb on theshelf and go rent ANY GIVEN SUNDAY

AVOID THIS MOVIE LIKE THE PLAGUE!

The premise that this is a feel good movie is completely destroyed bythe fact that ‘our heroes’ have essentially crossed a picket to attainthis status. They have a name for that where I come from.

I don’t care that it is overpaid sports ’stars’ that are the supposedvillains here. That is not an excuse, it’s sets a bad example and Iwouldn’t be a all surprised if the funding for this one came from alarge corporation or employers federation eager to plant the seed thatstrike breaking is indeed the all American way. Anyone who thinks thatshould take a closer look at the workers movement in the states andperhaps a good starting point would be the origins of May Day itself.Keanu’s million dollar smile can’t hide the maladaptive motives of thismovie.

If it weren’t for the very talented and very funny Orlando Jones, this moviewouldn’t have been worth watching, but thanks to lots of great scenes withOrlando Jones, the movie is somewhat worth renting even though I wouldn’tbuy it or anything. This is another one of those predictable sports comedieswith a thin script and bad acting [Orlando Jones is the only one who seemsto know how to act here]. The movie would have been better if the filmakerswere able to rise above the sports comedy genre and either spoof it orchange it. Instead of doing that, the filmakers bring us the same old stuffin this comedy that is only mildly amusing in some spots.

The Replacements is the kind of movie they should be showing in filmschool. We can all look at Chinatown, Don't Look Now, Witness, BringingUp Baby, Tokyo Monogatari, ET, Tootsie or Crimson Tide and see why theywork well. It would be more of a challenge to take a heap of dung likeThe Replacements and say, "Right, fix that." They ticked off all theboxes; a reluctant hero steps up for one final chance at glory andredemption. Mentored by a grizzly old coach, supported by a wacky butloyal group of peers, he battles adversity, wins the game, and gets thegirl. It could be Major League with more heart, or Bull Durham withmore laughs.

Except it doesn't work. It isn't funny (I felt for Gene Hackman tryingto wring a laugh out of mis-pronouncing 'wiry', I just wanted to go upand pat him on the back, say 'never mind, mate', buy him a beer…),and there is zero drama. The prison dance routine to 'I Will Survive'probably takes the prize for worst scene of all. I think they tried fora pastiche, aiming at camp, but it is just… so bad. It is likewatching one of those cabaret circuit stand-up comics dying slowly onstage, determined to make it through his routine despite the risingindifference of the audience. This is an absolute train-crash, bombedout horror of a movie, a real lesson in 'How Not To.' It does for thesports genre what Wing Commander did for sci-fi. I hope someone one daygets to record Hackman answering the question "Why?". The other actorscan at least say, "I wanted to work with Gene Hackman." What on earthis his excuse?

i was supposed to see a sneak of Nutty Professor II, but too many peopleshowed up and i got turned away. luckily, i noticed there was anotherscreening taking place - i managed to sneak my way in, and it turned outtobe The Replacements. now, i am in NO way a Keanu Reeves fan, but despitehis presence and some suspect plotting, this is a pretty fun film. thereare some good laughs, and i think Rhys Ifans is hilarious, so the humorwasa pleasant surprise. i’m not much into American football, but the actiononthe field was fine, they attempted some different things which is alwaysgood, and they managed to avoid a few of the standard cliches, if not allofthem. on the whole, i enjoyed it more than it bothered me, which for metosay about a Keanu film is something indeed. check it out, but turn offthemovie-plot-deficiency-detector part of your brain beforehand, yourenjoymentof the picture will be much the better for it.

Based of course, on the infamous 1987 NFL players’ strike, "TheReplacements" feels as if it should have been made in 1987. Featuring themind-numbingly stereotypical gaggle of misfits and outcasts, this filmdefinitely leans more towards "Major League" forgettability than "BullDurham" loftiness. And mind-numbingly-stereotypical might be the summary onthis turkey. Take a moment and consider every possible sports cliché youcan. Got ‘em all? No? Well, the makers of "The Replacements" left no clichéstone unturned, believe you me - capped off with the most inane rah-rahspeech ever put to celluloid (voiced soullessly by what-the-hell-am-I-doing-hereGene Hackman). By now you’re gettin’ that I didn’t appreciate this thing,and maybe you’re wondering "well, what about Keanu?"

Yeah, what about Keanu? Here’s a hint: Remember what Mark Hamill did between"Star Wars" movies?

For a film trumpeting the merits of second chances, Keanu clearly takes acolossal bite out of his at the Hollywood A-List (having secured it ofcourse, with "The Matrix", he is in full "Johnny Mnemonic" mode here). Ofcourse, with two more "Matrix" movies on the way, Keanu can quietly cash hischeck and move on. It makes one wonder though, that this is the same blokein "Little Buddha". Maybe the guy does have some acting range afterall.

Incidentally, the only saving grace maybe, was Jon Favreau as thebull-in-the-china-shop sack machine, even though he reminded me ofwhat’s-his-name from the "Police Academy" series.

Steer clear, men. Football season is only a few weeks away.

How’s THIS for originality: a down-on-his-luck team owner recruits a bunchof ‘wacky’ and ‘lovable’ losers and misfits (are there any other kind?)who’miraculously’ band together and not only make a team…they make (sniff)afamily. But since this a "man’s" movie, full of p**s-n-vinegar (yeah, theywish!), they’re not supposed to be so much of a family as a bunch o’buddies, lest anyone accuse them of being weak (hell, no!) or pansies (godforbid!) In the annals (for the illiterate, that has nothing to do withanyone’s butt) of cinema, there have been a good number of sports-themedcomedies: "Bull Durham", "Slap Shot", "The Bad News Bears", just to name afew, and while they, too, may hardly have been original, they at leastWEREwhat comedies are SUPPOSED TO BE: funny. In the course of nearly twohours,there wasn’t a single honest-to-goodness laugh. Hell, there wasn’t even amoment that brought a grin! The hard part (other than why this was made inthe first place) is where to lay the blame; the possibilities are endless.Let’s start with Keanu Reeves: there’s a reason why he’s in not featuredintoo many comedies and that reason is the guy just ain’t funny. And let’sface facts: he can’t act. Here, he is comatose, expressionless, with linereadings that can only be called robotic. And do YOU see HIM as aquarterback? Talk about miscast! Next is the writing - no cliche is leftunturned: will the former quarterback (Reeves) join the team? will he fallin love with the token female in the movie? w
ill there a be a characterwhois hard-drinkin’ and a wise-ass? will there be a sensitive moment when thecoach tells the quarterback that he’s the only one who really loves thegame? I could spend hours telling of every overworked theme that’s madeitsway into the movie; the sad part is that that would still be moreentertaining than this dreck. And how ’bout those supproting players…notonly do you get THREE - count ‘em: THREE! - blubbery fat guys (numerousshots of their bulging bellies - isn’t that funny?), but two are black andthe other’s Japanese, which provides countless laffs as they bounce racialslurs back and forth. Boy, there hasn’t been THIS level of hilarity sincethe OJ trial! And, fresh from his annoying 7-Up commercials, Orlando Jonesis featured in a role that is, essentially, "the girly-boy": not only doeshe hide during the inevitable barroom fight scene, but he’s also prettyfondof "I Will Survive"; still, to prove he’s "all man", the filmmakersprovidea few shots of him dancing suggestively with some blonde floozy. (Minusthedirty dancing, it could easily be Stepin Fetchit.) Jon Favreau portrays athe kind of character usually given a name like Killer or Meat: thesnarling- but wacky-n-lovable! - he-beast. He is, in one word, an embarrassment.Notfor a single moment is he believable. The worst fate is reserved for GeneHackman, who is slumming here; he performs every scene lackadaisically, asif his heart just ain’t in it. I certainly hope he was paid handsomely. Icertainly hope it was worth it. Continuing to put the blame where itbelongs, special mention must be made of the director, Howard Deutch, amanwho hasn’t helmed a worthwhile film other than "Grumpier Old Men"; as withhis other attempts at directing, this film is jumbled and at timesincoherent - often, it’s downright confusing as to just where this film isgoing (answer: nowhere) and what he’s trying to say (the only clearmessagewe get is this: rich=bad, poor=good, exemplified by the cartoonish proplayers who go on strike to earn more millions and theeven-more-cartoonishscabs who make up this motley crew whom we’re supposed to be rooting for).Whole scenes go absolutely nowhere, a problem not exactly helped byeditingthat appears to have been handled by someone blind wielding a gardenshears;numerous, useless shots seem thrown in blindly to pad an already-too-longmovie. And then there’s the photography: this is one UGLY looking film! Ithink there was an attempt to give the film a somewhat ‘gritty’ look butitserves only to make all involved seem vaguely unwashed. No, they look -well- skanky. (Which I suppose is only fitting for a story about a bunch oflosers.) Keanu comes off the worst: either he’s gettin’ a littlelong-in-the-tooth or it just looks that way; throughout the entire affair,it appears he’s just come off a long, long bender. Which might be a prettygood idea, now that I think about it; maybe if I had a few stiff drinks Icould forget I wasted my energy on this c**p.

read comments (0)

Titan A.E.

This film tries to break out of the shadow of Disneys oppressive (and nowfloundering) animation empire, but clusters so badly it makes many ofDisneys more uninspired recent films look tremendous. Matt Damon might aswell have just stayed at home, Bill Pullman should RETIRE. Better yetsomeone in Hollywood should make it clear to all these big name "actors"that just because they act in films, it sure as hell dont mean that theyarequalified to voice act… neither showed any fire or passion, insteadoptingto give typical reads. Aside from the acting being subpar, the film looksTERRIBLE!!! Straight animation can look good with computer animation… butwhat happened with this film is anyones guess as it looks choppy andrushed.If your looking for a non Disney fix grab the Iron Giant, because this filmwill just bore ya to tears…

This is one of the worst movies ever made. Its not so bad its good, its justbad. This is a film that actually has some wonderful things in it but its sobadly put together with dreck that one wants to look for the masking tapeholding the pieces of film together.

Nominally the story of a young hero trying to save humanity after evilaliens have destroyed earth and driven mankind into space, this movie makesdetours into other films and styles including the final surreal moment whereit becomes the Tick in outer space (Planet BOB). The rumor was that everyonehad a hand in the film and that despite Don Bluth’s best efforts to remainin control he had to bend to other people’s helpful ideas.(I haven’t heardBluth’s commentary to the film nor do I have the strength to see the filmagain so I maybe wrong in what I remember) The result is a series ofstitched together sequences that are fine apart but not goodtogether.

The animation is a bad combination of hand drawn and computer rendered thatnever really meshes.

I remember seeing this on the big screen on opening day and leaving with aheadache since sequences like the asteroids of ice were too much like a badvideo game to be watchable.

As I said there are moments (Planet Bob) but the rest is justawful.

Avoid unless you like to see non fun bad movies.

By no means is "Titan A.E." great, but it is a fun film with decentanimation and good character voices.

Bill Pullman, Matt Damon, John Leguizamo and Drew Barrymore make up thecharacters, and though the plot is predictable and at times almost full ofitself, it is still a good film to be enjoyed. Not great, butgood.

3/5 stars –

John Ulmer

What is wrong with you? I waited a year for this smoking pile ofdog poooie. Breathtaking? Not really.

1. The script could have been done better by a group of first graders.Therewasn’t a great deal of plot and character development goingonhere. Be real. There was NONE. We care about characters becausewritersmake them interesting, complicated, fragile….

UNPREDICTABLE? *cough*

2. The animation? One nice visual at the beginning of the movie.Therest of the movie was polluted with annoying cgi superimposedontopof class anaimation. This became really hard to watch. I find ithardto believe that Don Bleuth was involved in this travesty.

Titan could have been a great flick. Had they stuck withtraditionalanamation, maybe focused more on the downfall of the humans, andtaken the time to develop things….. hey…there might havebeena sequel.No chance of that. Fox anamation studios is nowdefunctbecause the movie did so poorly and cost them so much.There won’t ba sequel to Anastatia either.

People.. QUIT comparing this to Star Wars. Dirty Blasphmers. Buryit.

…along with the rest of the earth. Had I not been seeing itwith friends,I would have left the theatre about half way through. This is only thethird movie of my life I’ve actually wanted to walk out of. Granted, thecomputer generated visuals are spectacular at times, but the story and thedialog consist of a string of random cliches, thrown together withoutmeaning or purpose. Character and motivation are not implausible, theyarenon-existent. And where did they find that HIDEOUS music? I don’t feelbadthat I payed 7.50 to see this movie, I feel bad that I sacrified 2 hoursofmy life to it. I may not be able to save the human race from destruction,but hopefully I can save a few poor souls from subjecting themselves to anexperience this horrific!

I went to see this movie with some friends from out of town. One ofthem fell asleep, and the rest of us were jealous. At least he got toenjoyhis time in the theater. To put it bluntly, there is absolutely nothing torecommend this film. The characters and plot both manage to be completelyuninteresting and absolutely stereotypical at the same time. The filmrepeatedly came to a jarring halt so Don Bluth could show us a musicvideo.The plot holes are enormous. I went in expecting a movie which, if notaimedsquarely at adults, would at least have something for those over six toenjoy. The animation was pretty, but that couldn’t save the film, and Ifeltthat the traditional animation was poorly integrated with theCGI.Take the ten dollars you would have spent on the movie and buy yourselfatape of Reboot/The Simpsons/Akira. Or even "All Dogs go to Heaven". Yourmoney will have been far better spent.

A few decades after his father put him on an escape craft moments beforetheDrej destroyed the earth, and Cale Tucker is part of the dying species ofhuman working in the universe. He is approached by Capt Korso, tellinghimthat he holds the map to where his father hid the powerful Titan craft.However the Drej want it every bit as much as humanity.

I came to this film by mixing it up with that other multiplex sci-fianimation that was fully computer generated. I forget it’s title but Irealised quite quickly that this film wasn’t it! However, the opening 5minutes are so gripping that I was hooked, however it couldn’t keep it upand the tone was too uneven to be successful. On one hand you have abasicsci-fi plot that looks great, has style and moves well. The action issurprisingly bloody at times but at other times it chickens out ofkillingcharacters - preferring Looney Toons type reaction to explosions.

The biggest area where it shows it’s second speed is it’s characters.Theyhave character traits that are interesting and not everyone is as theyseem,but they have all been through the Disney style machine and been madecuterand funnier than they should have been. This is a major down side as thematerial and delivery required darker characters. Sure it would have madeitless of a kids movie but it would have been better. As it is, it isstillan enjoyable sci-fi despite this kid-friendly shine toit.

The voice cast are good on paper but not all as good in reality. Damonis asolid All-American lead and does well, while Pullman adds much neededweightto his role. Barrymore doesn’t sound like her hearts’ in it andGarofalo’svoice simply doesn’t suit her character or her dialogue. Likewise bothLaneand Leguizamo contribute to the Disney effect by playing it too humorousattimes - they do OK but don’t fit what I was looking for.

Overall this is an OK sci-fi despite the weaknesses. If I had the choiceIwould watch something else but, for what it is, it is pretty enjoyablebutshould have stuck with the darker tone that at times it has to goodeffect.

After watching this film and discussing it with my 24-yr-old son, we came tothe conclusion that animation is not particularly suited to a serious story. My favorite animated films are all comedies - Tarzan, Toy Story 1 and 2, Abug’s Life, Chicken Run - I guess there’s just something in most of us thatassociates animation with fun.

"Titan A.E." tries to tell a serious story, the destruction of the earth inthe 3000s, followed by Cale’s search for the Titan which his dad had hiddenwhen the Drej a
ttacked earlier. He has to find it, and destroy the "pureenergy" Drej, to preserve the human race. The animation is very well done."Name" actors, like Matt Damon, Bill Pullman, Jeananne Garafolo, DrewBarrymore, nathan Lane, John Liguezamo, voice the main characters. Butanimation just can’t capture the real emotions and movements of real people,so I found myself being aware of this throughout the film. Contrast"StaWars" films, for example.

Still, I enjoyed it very much and rate it 7 of 10. Much of the outer spaceeffects are done really well. However, many of them are not. As most Sci-Fifilms do, they still "fly" spacecraft as if they were in air. That may haveworked in the 1950s, but now we know so much more about how ships reallymove in space, it is obvious when they violate the laws ofphysics.

The DVD has both DTS and Dolby Digital 5.1 soundtracks selectable. I foundthe DTS one better. The picture is always beautiful and detailed. There areseveral extras, my favorite being the Fox Kids special which is actually a"making of" documentary. Of note, missing, is a section on the actors,writer, and director.

I’m horrified that I am forced to share a planet with so many people whoactually liked Titan AE. Please all go and see ‘2001 - A Space Odyssey’ orat least watch ‘Fururama’ at once and get a life!Yours with horror - Phil

It is very clear that the makers of this movie so badly wanted to make avisually stunning animated film that they completely forgot all the rest:the characters, the sound track, the story - all of it is just a load ofleft-overs. "Titan A.E." is over quickly, but not until it has bored theinterest out of the audience over a certain age. The sound-track is a wearyattempt at adding some action to the whole thing, but it justdoesn’t.

Too bad, ’cause I like the basic idea.

read comments (0)

U-571

DISCLAIMER: The comment labeled "Great!!!" wasn’t mine. I let my sisteruse my IMDB User Name until she gets her own. Her views do not reflectmine. PLUS SPOILERS!

I don’t know what Hollywood has against Great Britain. I don’t see whytheyfelt the need to make a joke about the British-Polish attempt and successofcapturing an Enigma decoder from the crippled U-110. I guess it isbecausethey feel a movie depicting British heroes won’t fare well in the US. BUTAMERICANS AREN’T LIKE THAT! The James Bond movies do better in Americathanin any other country! Considering that in the post-Cold War ones thatAmerica was only mentioned several times, we can accept non-Americanheroes.Anyway, I couldn’t care about this movie.We have some American guys who don’t have any real names (Did They?) andnopersonality. Since Britain is obviously so incompetent that they crippledunder the blitzkrieg of London and let the Bismarck slip right throughtheirbutter fingers,Americans need to rescue the Brits. In case you aren’tawareof WWII, Churchill gave his "We’ll fight them in the streets and landinggrounds to the last man" speech during the heigh of London’s firebombing.British Admiralty also coordinated the destruction of the super-battleshipBismarck, no help from us. For Christ’s sake, I half-expected to seeChurchill about to be forced to walk the plank before Superman, errr,UncleSam lept to the rescue.Anyway, I didn’t care anything about the characters, who either givenewdefinition to "paper cutout" or strongly reinforce the existing one. EricPalladino, Dr. Dave from ER, exists only to get killed and look heroiclydoing so. The black guy was there only to appeal to minorities. His mostmemorable line is "Drop it you Nazi son of a b*tch!". Keitel did a goodjob, acting like another uninteresting person. The only person I foundinteresting was Coonan, who suddenly disappears for no reason. Oh yeah,that Wentz guy. He could speak German, that’s the only reason I rememberhim. Oh yeah, and we have our favorite nudist playing the commander ofthispathetic crew.The explosions (There are lots of them!) are first and so is sound.Ifyou want to kill a few hours, I’d recommend this. But for real heroism onthe high seas, watch SINK THE BISMARCK or HUNT FOR REDOCTOBER.Note: I’m entertaining a career as a filmmaker, and I’m planning todirect a GOOD Batman movie (That was meant as an insult for thepost-Burtonones!) and a remake of SINK THE BISMARCK. Chao!

Could you guys stop with the historical inaccuracy already? This is a"fiction". Hence, as I recall, fiction will not be historically accuratebecause it never happened. It may be "based" on a true story, but it isstill fiction. If some of you insist on having historical accuracy withrespect to WWII, then I’d suggest you go out and get a documentary video onWWII or submarines. Geesh people, relax.

In regards to the movie itself, I wasn’t expecting anything big from seeingthe trailers. So when I watched the movie, it did more than I expected. Thatdoesn’t mean it was one of the best movies of the month, but it’s a greatmovie. The kind of movie that I’d like to keep in my movie vault and pullout once-in-a-while when I’m bored. Kinda like Broken Arrow, Twister, orJaws.

Well, what can I say. I’ve just returned from the cinema, and for the past2 hours I felt like I was actually in a U-boat. Thats how realistic thisfilm is.

As you probably know, the story is about an American Naval team attemptingto capture the Enigma device from a battered German submarine, but oncapture things go wrong, seamen die, and the Americans are stranded on thebattered German boat. Imagine the feeling. Not only have these guys lostmany of there men, there stuck on a German submarine, with just twoGerman-speaking men, and the submarine has already taken a battering fromanother American submarine. As well as that, there expecting another Germanboat any minute. Uh-oh.

So, with this set-up, we have another Hollywood masterpiece in the making. Jonathan Mostow clearly researched heavily for this project, wrote a veryeffective screenplay and directed with a certain style that made you feelyou were there.

Some of the scenes were breathtaking, such as a view of the sea, with about10 depth chargers gradually exploding. The view of the sailors on board asthey explode is incredible. You find yourself thinking ‘God, I hope theymake it!’

I only found three queries with this film. Bill Paxton, David Keith and JonBon Jovi. I thought these guys desereved bigger roles. In the briefhalf-hour we see them, they were all outstanding, with Jon Bon Jovi (to mysurprise) leading the way. But, soon they were gone, and I felt a big partof the film went to. Still, Matthew McConaughey was outstanding as therookie, make-shift captain. Good old Harvey Keitel supported him withrespect whilst being stern, and Jack Noseworthy, whom I recognised from’Event Horizon’ was really impressive as radio-man and half-German Wentz. He is definately one for the future.

Overall, I felt the effects were excellent. The direction was outstanding. The cast was mouth-watering and the music made hardly anydifference.

If you enjoyed any war film from the past 40 years, enjoy water films likeJaws, or submarine films, such as Das Boot and The Hunt for Red October,then this film is for you. If your looking for a good night out, then Irecommend this film for you.

It’s worth the entrance fee, and gives you the closest feeling to being in aWorld War II U-boat, ever!

10 out of 10

This movie is truly spectacular!!! Wonderful special F/X, GREAT SOUNDTRACK,and combine all that with a superb plot, this should be known as the bestmovie of the year. I’ve already seen it in the theatre twice, and I wouldjump at the oppurtunity to see it again!

When I first saw ads for this film, I thought "Oh Great, a crappy war movieabout explosions." But, for some reason I decided to pay $5 and give it ashot. To my surprise, I didn’t waste my money. The film was action-packedwith twists, turns, and a great ensemble of actors who were not onlygood-looking, but talented as well. Matthew McConaughey gave a superbperformance as Lt. Andrew Tyler. Bill Paxton (Lt. Commander Mike Dahlgren)and Harvey Keitel (Chief Klough) were excellent as well, but that wasreallyno big shocker. The huge surprise of the whole film had to have been JonBon Jovi as Lt. Pete Emmett. Who knew that a rocker could actually act?Other standouts include Jake Weber (Lt. Hirsh), T.C. Carson (Eddie), JackNoseworthy (Wentz), Erik Palladino (Mazzola), and Tom Guiry (Trigger).DavePower (Tank) also proved to have quite an acting ability in his film debut.

German soldier Wassner played by Thomas Kretshmann was one of thecharactersthat proved how well this film was written. Even though the audience issupposed to be against the Germans, these soldiers are not portrayed asevilbeings with no humanity at all. Wassner was portrayed as a brave soldierwho fought for his country with all his might just like the Americansoldiers. U-571 might have done a better job with that than Saving PrivateRyan. Don’t write me if you disagree; it’s just my opinion.

I must say that I didn’t care much for the ending of the film. Therewasn’tmuch of a resolution. The movie just kind of ended after two hours. But,the rising actions that sucked the audience in completely made up for thisending. Another minor problem was how certain characters look alike. Ifyou haven’t seen this film yet, there are two characters you must be warnedabout, Trigger and Rabbit. These are two completely different characterswho look exactly alike (in submarine light anyway). So, if you thinkMcConaughey just feels like calling Trigger by the name Rabbit, thinkagain.It’s a different guy. I guess Tom Guiry and Will Estes just have thatsimilar cute, boyish look (according to me, a 15 year
oldgirl).

But, the movie is great and worth your five bucks so don’t pass it up!You’ll have a great two hours.

U-571 is a prime example of what movie making should be. I was literally onthe edge of my seat through the entire movie. And in my opinion, U-571should be nominated for many academy awards, including Best Picture. It’sone of the best war movies out there, and it doesn’t need all that extremeviolence to be so. It has a great plot, great acting, and great suspense.Ifyou’re looking for a suspense movie that doesn’t fall through, then PLEASEcheck out U-571. You will not be disappointed. **** out of****

U-571 was very intense, on the edge of your seat thriller. Full of actionand suspense,few sub movies compare. The movie is about an American subposing as a German trying to get an Enigma code machine from anothergermansub that is disabled.This is a must see for action/adventure fans.10/10

Well, if you like the submarines’ stories then you will enjoy this movie.Audio and video effects are simply great. Sometimes, you will really thinkto be with sub’s crew and desire to launch a torpedo. I don’t want to tellall the story but I think that I will buy the DVD when it will be on sale.

In a refreshing trend of portraying the military in a positive light, U-571will hold your attention on all counts.

I watched it twice consecutively because I liked it so well. The battlesbetween the destroyers and the submarines are realistically andauthentically captured.

Forget the historically inaccurate label some of the comments have cited. The film is a tribute to ALL the brave Navy men in WWII and not meant as adocumentary.

The whole family will enjoy this one!

I saw U-571 in one of my classes and I thought it was awesome. It wastotally unpredictable and very suspenseful. I absolutely loved it. I don’tsee how a movie like this wasn’t thought up a long time ago. I think thateveryone should experience this and see how the lives of officers aboardsubs were really important. I mean, it took alot of people to run one ofthose ships and these guys did it with 6 or 7. It was great!

read comments (0)

The Perfect Storm

This is not a very good movie - well, it ain't bad but it just doesn't"bring it home". The special effects are fine, but too much stormyweather and the end is flat and out of line with the rest of the movie.

Basically I think that describing a fishing boat in rough weather is agood idea - but for getting some real depths into such a complicatedissue directors such as Lars Von Trier or Quentin Tarantino wouldprobably have been better bets.

It comes down to being a relatively boring movie (in spite of theimpressive special effects) with rather uninterestingcharacter-conflicts, and you never really feel that the movie starts…

If the director had solely focused on stormy weather and left out theuninteresting human conflicts it would have stood out as more honest.Too much was told and too little made an impact.

But an OK main-stream catastrophe-movie - the mistake just being thatthey tried to make it into something a bit more than that. It ain't.

It beats me: how can such a great ensemble (George Clooney, WolfgangPetersen (WOLFGANG PETERSEN DAS BOAT) result in such an over-wroughtHollywood debacle? Like some mystical coming together of disparateelements that result in a cinematic disaster of epic proportions. Somemay call it A Perfect Crock. I re-read the novel recently and thought Ishould watch the movie. I couldn't. From the cloying, saccharin sweetmusical score to the wretched acting/direction this whole thing is adisaster movie in every sense of the word. If you enjoyed the noveltake my advice: under no circumstances rent this and attempt to watchit. Other viewer comments refer to Dramamine…believe me, it's not theocean swells that will have reaching for anti-nausea medication.

This was the 2nd time around for myself on this tense production.Having read the book and seen the movie a few years back, it seemed tograb me again this time. And not for the original reasons.This viewingalmost came as a surprise-a prophecy.

Consider the characters…mostly a gathering of desperate people doomedto their eventual demise because of the real life pathos for money.Some just need to stay ahead of the creditors. Some need to stayabreast of somebody’s vile opinion of them (i.e. George Clooney).Others might just seem caught up in the need to succeed…despiteapparent warnings.

The storms themselves are a backdrop to a sinister mega plot of anunseen entity (or Deity). What we have here is the prescription forself destruction which drive so many of us to make toxic choices in ourpersonal lives. And all such choices usually result in "battle damage"to so many we encounter in our all too brief stay on this planet.

The world as were view it today is a brewing storm and it will consumethose who chose unwisely. This especially includes those in position ofauthority ( political, judicial, legislative and clergy) to list but afew. Not to heed warnings and NOT to respect the very planet that wasgiven to us eons past is a major blunder…and many will be caught upin this other "PERFECT STORM".

I read lots of these comments and am stunned at the gullibility of thegeneral public. This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen with theaudience being asked to accept impossible situations, clichécharacters, an appalling musak score and 2 hours of boredom in abathtub. There is no way, for example, that people on a boat could walkaround on deck in some of the effects-waves we were asked to watch, andno way a helicopter could stay aloft in winds we were asked to accept.God knows what George Clooney was doing in this dog - maybe had acontractual obligation or somesuch. This movie is an example of thepower of mass marketing and is without value except at the box office.The only redeeming feature is that it didn't run to 3 hrs. I watched,fascinated by it's dreadful dreariness right to the clichéd end,thinking of what the $120M cost MIGHT have produced.

I was hoping for more of a "Man Vs Nature" story. In the end it was a dumbstory about an ice machine? I could also see that there was trouble tryingto invent how the crew "should" interact. There are too many real peoplestill around to file law suits.Great FX + generated images though.

I think The Perfect Storm (2000) was very very bad. The trailer was allabout action, the movie all about some crying and saying goodbye. We havetowatch over more than 6 people saying goodbye to their beloved. Do i havetosay more……

I thoroughly enjoyed The Perfect Storm in its book form and highlyrecommendit. Perhaps if that had not been the case, I would have thought the movieworth the time it took to watch it. As it is, I think the movie is anexample of why the genres of print and celluloid don’t often mix well. Inamovie such as this "made to be a blockbuster only" type, Hollywood seemsentirely more interested in special effects (which were almost bearable inthis movie) than in being special.

We waited a while to see Perfect Storm, and finally watched it on DVD overthe New Year’s weekend. I intend no disrespect to the real people who diedin that incident by any of my following comments. This review has to doonlywith the movie’s handling of the story.

This movie was ridiculous. Even my sentimental wife, whose favorite movieisSound of Music, was laughing at the overly dramatic set-ups of the movie’scharacters before they took their fateful trip. She actually startedspouting cliched dialog in a few scenes. dialogue that was more or lesswhatthe characters then said. And we both mocked the movie’s "theme" music,which was the same 6-7 notes played over and over and over and over, asoften as possible.

Perfect Storm hits you over the head (then smashes you in the stomach, thenknees you in the groin) with the thought that being a swordfishcaptain/crewis in your blood … a poetic existence … being at one with yourself andthe sea. It essentially ignores any common sense on behalf of thecharactersand also overlooks the fact that this is a group of people who seem to havemade one bad decision after another in their lives and who are doomed to besitting penniless, toothless and alone at the local crappy bar as they ageand die at age 52. There were almost NO redeeming characteristics in thisgroup of seamen, and they sure as heck weren’t very smart.

So, when the storm hits, do you care what happens? Not really. We keptthinking about the *real* men who died, and what they went through, and wefelt bad for them. But these doofuses in the movie were just asking forit.

The one group of characters who were easier to empathize with were therescue crews. Those scenes dew the viewer in and served to make youappreciate brave people who do very tough jobs. It also made you even moreannoyed at the sword boat crew that put the rescuers in the difficultposition they were in.

Finally, the much ballyhooed special effects were basically limited toshotsof big waves in the background, and, finally, the shot we all saw in thetrailer and commercials where the ship hits the monster wave. Very littlevariety, very little of interest once you get used to the waves.

I can’t believe this was a popular movie. We gave it a 4, and that was outof respect for the people whom this movie is loosely based on. May theyrestin peace.

The most entertaining part of seeing this film was when the fire alarmwentoff in the cinema and caused an evacuation. The casting is wrong, theperformances are dull, the effects unconvincing, and the interpolation(sheer guesswork?) of what happened and what was said are too speculativetobe credible. Why does the noise of the storm always abate to nothing whenGeorge Clooney is about to say something? Why did we not see the stormsbrewing, only the waves? Is that a cheaper effect, I wonder? r>
Perfect Storm? Perfect rubbish!

…and generally sucked. The storm effects weren’t too bad.But, What wasthe point of it all?

A boat full of fisherman go to sea on long trips, they are all pretty muchloners except for one of them (Mark W. and Diane L.) The Captain (GeorgeC.)of the boat has a friendship with another fishing boat captain. Whilethey are out looking for fish, a couple of really big storms brew overhead,and then merge making ‘The Perfect Storm’. Well… they fight against itfor a while, then decide to turn back.

Most stories have an ending, this one didn’t!

read comments (0)

The Million Dollar Hotel

This movie took a long time to make - fifteen years, in fact. It wasspearheaded by Bono and U2, and still it took forever to make. However- and I’m loathe to say this because I’m not big on U2 - this is agreat little arty gem of a movie.

Wim Wenders does his usual bit. If you’ve never seen a Wim Wendersmovie, just imagine what a film by a man who was born in the ruins ofpostwar Berlin, had five wives between the years 1968 and 1981 (avg.length of marriage a little over two years)and is the Martin Scorceseof Germany looks like. He is himself above all a cinephile, and leftstudies of medicine and philosophy and a career as an artist to diveinto the world of film. He, like the great 70s Generation in theStates, came of age in a time of political turbulence and artisticexperimentation, and it shows in his work.

He’s a director’s director, and European to boot, so some audiences arejust going to dislike it as a matter of course. For those not turnedoff by Art House movies, there is a lot here to like.

The huge ensemble cast features a menagerie of the best characteractors working, such as Amanda Plummer, Bud Cort, Harris Yulin, andothers. Bigger actors also do an art turn, like Milla Jovovich as thefemme in a love triangle involving a mental case and a rich kid who mayor may not have committed suicide, and Mel Gibson as the Fed who’sinvestigating his plummet from the roof.

It has a dreamlike quality that legitimizes the extreme characters, whoare at turns theatrically poetic and comically absurd, but alwaysbizarre.

Basically, this is a love it or hate it flick, I suspect, though manywill not be sure if they love it or hate it on the first viewing. Ihave yet to see it again, but I’m willing to give it the benefit of thedoubt.

Also highly recommended for the chemically enhanced

I first saw this film by accident - it was in the wrong box from thevideo rental store. But I’m a huge Wim Wenders fan (especially Wings ofDesire) and was not disappointed. It has that undefinableWenders-created atmosphere of magic existing cheek and jowl withtragedy that really makes you want to know exactly how DOES he see theworld. An outstanding cast headed by the criminally under-appreciatedJeremy Davies, with excellent performances by Milla Jovovich, MelGibson and many others.

The wonderfully atmospheric score is from a pastiche of sources -something I usually hate - but beautifully chosen in this case, withcontributions by Jon Hassell, Daniel Lanois, Bono, and Eno.

I did not really understand why this movie was so criticized. Maybe itwas because it had so many themes put into it people didn't reallyunderstand it. But i enjoyed the blend and I thought this was a reallygood Wender's flick. Maybe not the best but one of the best for sure.The acting I found really good especially in the case of Jokovich whichi found surprising as i never really liked her as an actress. I reallyenjoyed the soundtrack, but the photography of the movie is what struckme the most as it blended completely with the ambiance of the film. Youcould really feel the folly of the characters. A give this movie an 8out of 10 for people who look deeper into a film. A leap of faith.

Why in the whole world was this movie made? How could it of beenreleased with such a story and who would want to make a film with sucha story and its sub-angles? Even more questionable is why in the worlddid Mel Gibson even think if he’d want to be in this film? Beats Me!This movie is so incredibly stupid its even worse than a than asking avery grouchy person a question a hundred times in row! Gibson’s greattalent is so misused here. I am surprised that this didn’t hurt MillaJovovich’s career. Tim Roth is totally wasted in this film. And what inthe world was with Jimmy Smits’ character? His character was sounnecessary. I won’t even go about Bono! Many films that are good areon the IMDb Bottom 100 list. Why isn’t this? This needs to replace oneand quickly too! I don’t recommend this film to anyone unless they wantto see great actors being total jokes in a sucky film.

Really, I expected the most: Wim Wenders, Bono, Gibson, Jovovich, Davies,the soon-to-be-star-wars Jimmy Smits and Peter Stormare in the bestsecondary role… and what I see is the absolute worst, a supreme dulness inthe story which seemed to walk around and around and around, never leavingthe same place. When they start with the philosophical thoughts, my time wasover… and I walked out of it, thinking that no aspect of my life was evenbarely changed by it. I understand the people who liked it, but I was reallyannoyed… I didn’t like it, since I think a story which revolves around abuilding full of crazy people, when a masked robot (or whatever) tries tofind out who killed who, goes where? Bahh!!!

This movie seemed to be one of those instances where the producer calls astar - Mel Gibson in this case - and says "What are you doing this weekend?Want to make a movie?" Mel gets some bucks and doesn’t break a sweat. Thecharacters are stereotyped and the plot is murky at best.

The only saving grace for this movie is the photography. It’simpressive.

I rented this flick without knowing anything about it, except that MelGibson was in it. He’s the man so it had to be good. Not! It was boringand dumb. I was so disappointed that Mel was in such a film. I ask myself,why would he do such a bad picture? Did he owe someone a favor orwhat?

I know a lot of people will see this movie, see the excellent acting in it,and call it a good movie. They are wrong. While the entire cast doesthemselves proud, this movie is still a creeping, too long boring crap rideof stink. Remember what "Mosquito Coast" taught us, a confusing movie doesnot mean art.

There’s a line of dialogue delivered about halfway through this film thatoffers a strange sort of commentary on the work as a whole: `The linebetween art and garbage can sometimes be very thin.’ Well, this film maynot be quite garbage, but it sure the hell ain’t art either!.

In fact, `The Million Dollar Hotel’ is an `art film’ in the worst sense ofthe term – rambling, self-indulgent and too impressed with its owncleverness to be truly effective. One gets the impression, while watchingthis movie, that director Wim Wenders gathered a bunch of his acting palstogether and let them loose in front of the rolling cameras to carry on inthe most amateurishly self-indulgent manner imaginable. Since every singlelast one of the characters in the film is mentally disturbed in some way,the actors are afforded more than ample opportunity to strut their thespiantalents, indulging in all the assorted tics and twitches that have helped towin many a fine performer an award come Oscar night.

`The Million Dollar Hotel’ perpetuates the time-honored tradition in thearts that mentally ill people somehow have far greater insight into therealities of the world than those who are not. When this theme is placedwithin the context of a comedy as it is here, the results are invariablycutesy and condescending. The setting is a downtown LA hotel inhabitedalmost exclusively by quixotic misfits, recent turnouts from local mentalhealth institutions. When one of the residents, a modern artist, falls tohis death, the man’s wealthy father calls in an investigator played by MelGibson to prove that the cause of death was not suicide but murder. Ofcourse, in the biggest cliché of all, Gibson’s detective turns out to bejust as mentally unhinged as the people he is there to investigate. Basedon a story idea by Bono (of U2 fame) and Nicholas Klein, the film wasactually written only by Klein, although Bono does provide some hauntingmusic as backdrop for the action. Unfortunately, Klein is unable to reallybring the characters and story elements together in a way that would makethem compelling and he
is further hampered by the desultory style of thedirector. Wenders has always brought a dreamlike quality to his films, buthe has never really been able to draw the audience very deeply into hisworlds. `The Million Dollar Hotel’ is indeed no exception.

In addition to Gibson (whom one must assume waived his going `milliondollar/per movie role’ rate in order to work with a director he obviouslyadmires), the impressive cast includes Jimmy Smits, Milla Jovovich, AmandaPlummer, Gloria Stuart, Julian Sands and Tim Roth all doing their best giventhe material they have to work with.

One always appreciates an attempt by any filmmaker to break free of therestrictions of homogenized commercial filmmaking, but one also has to bewilling to state when such an attempt is a misfire in its own right. `TheMillion Dollar Hotel’ never even gets to the ignition stage.

I find Wim Wenders output to be maddingly uneven. While I love some of hismovies (especially ‘The American Friend’, ‘Paris, Texas’ and ‘Wings OfDesire’), most of them irritate me beyond belief. ‘The Million Dollar Hotel’isn’t his worst movie for me, but it is the tritest.

The story (co-written by Bono) seems to have taken all of fifteen minutes tocome up with, and the gallery of freaks, misfits and losers on screen arewith one exception unbelievable and uninteresting. Two previous movies thatmanaged to pull this kind of ensemble off were ‘One Flew Over The Cuckoo’sNest’ and ‘The Ninth Configuration’. Mostly when actors are required to actmentally disturbed or eccentric they use it as an excuse for a procession ofempty mannerisms and "bits" thinking they are stretching their talent. Theyaren’t. They are just being phoney. This is what Jeremy Davies (who I likedvery much in ‘Spanking The Monkey’) does here. His character didn’t convinceme for one minute, and his romantic scenes with Milla Jovovich (’The FifthElement’) came across totally contrived and unnatural.

The talented supporting cast, who range from Hollywood heavyweight MelGibson to the usually reliable Amanda Plummer (see ‘Butterfly Kiss’) to cultfavourites Bud Cort (’Harold And Maude’) and Richard Edson (’Do The RightThing’), are equally wasted on this paper thin premise. The "one exception"is, surprisingly enough because he usually bores me, Peter Stomare (’Fargo’)who finally plays something other than his usual "crazy kraut" roles (see’8MM’, ‘Bruiser’ et al). Well he’s still crazy but this time round at leasthe’s engaging and funny as a guy deluded into thinking he’s the real talentbehind The Beatles.

Apart from Stomare’s scenes this is unexceptional stuff. There are muchworse movies out there, but that really isn’t the point - there are muchBETTER ones. Including some by Wim Wenders. Too bad.

read comments (0)

The Legend of Bagger Vance

I love the game of golf. I love movies with a good story. Hollywood hasgreat success with fantasies but unfortunately golf is a sport thatdefies fantasy. Golf is a sport about things that you cannot portray onthe screen and anyone who has played it seriously knows this well. Golfis an internal sport and it is very scientific. Magical charactersdon't suddenly appear in your head to show you the putting line thattwists like a 30 foot boa over the Pyranees. Golf is about spendinghours on your own on the putting range. It is a mental sport and if youhad an ex-girlfriend chatting in your ear like a parrot while you triedto hit a drive, or a fictional Will Smith uttering maximus excrementiain your other ear just before a 200 yard carry over water you andeveryone else on tour would probably shoot a lousy round of golf,perhaps your worst.

This movie illustrates everything that is wrong with Hollywood when itgoes bad. It makes up fantasies, and suckles the world's children onthem making them believe that heroism and success are merely a figmentof the strongest imaginations. If I imagine and focus strongly enough Ican simply hit a 3,000 yard drive. What's next Mr. Redford, SpiderManJoins the Tour? Stay away from golf stories, they're mostly internal,sort of like chess on grass. By the way, Matt Damon is most obviouslynot a golfer.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to see the movie on my campus. Thismovieis one that I would not recommend for any college aged audience. Theserious scenes cause the crowd to laugh with glee. The plot waspredictablefrom the beginning. Matt Damon’s character experienced the traditionaltransition of drunk to golfer back to drunk and finally to victoriousgolfer…zzzzzz. Will Smith should have been killing aliens in thismovie,cause it needed SOMETHING to speed it up. Even the golf balls moved slow.One scene involved Matt Damon planning out his shot and you see the sunsetand the clouds move. I was waiting to see the seasons change before hemadehis shot.

This motion picture was poorly cast. It drags along, with no characterdevelopment. People at the sneak preview were laughing at the unbelievablyof the actors, with many walkouts. Matt Damon is just not what thepublicity mills have built him up to be. And the casting of Joel GretschasBobbie Jones was the casting directors biggest mistake. He is a very pooractor, former Target model who has been around Hollywood for ten yearsbefore somehow getting this role. His performance is not even up to a highschool plays’ quality. The entire film looks like something the producersare trying to fool the public with by advertising reviews with thecriticsname being so small you can’t tell who they are. Poor acting, slow, veryslow story will have this one out of the theatres before Thanksgiving.Whata turkey!

This motion picture was poorly cast. It drags along, with no characterdevelopment. People at the sneak preview were laughing at the unbelievablyof the actors, with many walkouts. Matt Damon is just not what thepublicity mills have built him up to be. And the casting of Joel GretschasBobbie Jones was the casting directors biggest mistake. He is a very pooractor, former Target model who has been around Hollywood for ten yearsbefore somehow getting this role. His performance is not even up to a highschool plays’ quality. The entire film looks like something the producersare trying to fool the public with by advertising reviews with thecriticsname being so small you can’t tell who they are. Poor acting, slow, veryslow story will have this one out of the theatres before Thanksgiving.Whata turkey!

This film was one of the most pathetic movies I have ever seen. Totalclaptrap. Simplistic script, shallow characters and rancid storytelling. Itwill leave you screaming at the screen, "grow up!" The problem with thisfilm is that it is so corny. It tries to be the big, sentimental golf filmfor the ages. However, it comes across as so sappy, that even a golfenthusiast like myself felt ill. Nothing new in the story here, down and outathlete that is inspired to be special again. Damon is the "poor" athletethat is just so sad. Enter his inspiration, Will Smith, doing his bestimpersonation of an 80 year old house servant from the 1850’s. Will Smith isso bad in this film, that I was amazed he was allowed to continue with theproject. I would love to describe some of the other characters in this film,but they were so hollow, that there is simply nothing to describe. I believeRedford thought he could market this film to middle age golfers and cash in.However, the smoltzy nature of this material is just hard to watch with astraight face. There is a good reason why this film bombed, if you watch it,you will know.

What happened to movie-writers of the Usa in the last years? How can welisten to such a quantity of words that want to tell deep things and, onthecontrary, are only a terrible mix of empty new age pseudo-zen-paranormal-poetic; and how can we do a movie without anangel?

A childish new-agey fable boring and predictable, full of clichés andfrankly pathetic. Will Smith’s charlatan is one of the most annoyingcreations I’ve seen on screen lately. Good old Jack Lemmon must have been soashamed of it that he’s out of the credits. So bad that not even the littleboy is charming.

I just saw this movie again for the first time since it was firstreleased and there is only one thing that has bothered me since thatfirst viewing: Will Smith as Bagger is too young. I know he was a hotactor when the movie was made but the part cries for Danny Glover orMorgan Freeman. A little age on the character would have made thewisdom and witticisms work. As it is, Bagger just comes across as avaudeville act, rather than a vagrant that has seen the wear and tearof life, including the downtrodden world that a black man would haveexperienced at that point in time. America in the 20’s was not that farremoved from the slave days and the reflections on long gone relativesand friends would have worked with middle age as a bridge. Great part,just not enough mileage on the actor.

This was your normal feel good movie, but after reading the book, thismovie is not the greatest. I’m not knocking the actors because MattDamon was a good, but the screen play just played old suck. Theybutchered the book and made it into a romance. There was so muchmeaning in the book about life. It was all lost in the movie trying tomake a trite Hollywood movie. Will Smith as Bagger Vance was an awfuldecision and should have been some like Morgan Freeman. I know thatnormally movies are not as good as books. However in the case, it wascompletely off base. If you want to appreciate the movie, then don’tread the book. If you want to something to inspire you, then read thebook.

I figured how bad could it be to watch Matt Damon and Charlize Theronfor two hours in "The Legend of Bagger Vance"? And I have a fondnessfor sports romances.

But the movie feels like it was made in 1939, complete with the smilingdarkie servant (Will Smith).

Damon and Therize were supposed to have been affianced in 1916, wentthrough very good-looking hell of war and the Depression, and arereunited in 1931, well, gee, then by how they look they must have been10 in 1916. Damon’s just another Robert Redford Golden Boy and hasnowhere the appropriate washed-up athlete look that Kevin Costner hadin "Tin Cup," a much better golf movie.

Theron gets to be The Girlfriend Who Wears a Different Gorgeous PeriodOutfit in Every Camera Shot. She shows a bit of spunk, as does Damon,in the washed-up beginning, but the whole thing loses pazzazz duringthe match.

Redford seems to think that golf can be invested with the same magic asbaseball in "The Natural" and can be a stand-i
n for American idealismas baseball is in "Field of Dreams." On a segregated country club golfcourse??

The rest of the audience loved it, cheering and clapping at each of thecharacter’s successes. I had trouble staying awake

Not enough use is made of period music to match the costumes.

(originally written 11/5/2000)

read comments (0)

The Gift

Despite the powerful cast, who are all amazing actors who gave greatperformances.. "The Gift", just did’nt have any punch to it. Yes, it was alittle scary in parts of the movie… But this is something we have allseen before in thousands of bad horror flicks. This movie lacked themystery and suspense I was looking for…You already know whodunnit beforethe end of the movie! It just needed something else besides cheapthrills… The infamous Katie Holmes scene where she shows her best assetsis brief. I suggest you just buy it on DVD if that’s what you are alllooking for! Besides Katie, the rest of the movie is a gift I would return!

This film is stunning. There are few ways to describe it and do itjustice,so I will be brief. Cate Blanchette, captivating in "Elizabeth," returnstothe screen in a role that is stunning. Her performance is wonderful, andshe is breathtaking. The visuals will haunt you for quite some time. Thisis an excellent film to see more than once.

I’ll admit, I went into this film thinking I was in for a ride. And yes,there are some brief scary moments. Yet, it’s nothing new…it’s what Icall "stupid scary", you know, the stuff we’ve all seen in "What LiesBeneath", etc. So to make a long review short, to watch this movie, youhave to get past a few things. First, Keanu Reeves. No matter how muchpeople insinuate his "growth" as an actor, I just don’t see it- thereeasilycoul dhave been at least ten other actors that could have easily of beencast as a brutal, racist, wife-beating redneck and pull off some of thedialouge which Thorton’s script leaves somewhat to be desired. Second, thelong, drawn out court-room scenes. What can I say? Excepting Grisham andSchumacher, these can get boring. Thirdly, the predictability. It’s SOOOpredictable. I mean, Wes Craven should have been called to spice up thetwists, at least put some twists in- and there is one, at the very end, butnothing you didn’t see coming. I was expecting something more like L.A.Confidential or Hitch-cocky, with a gothic twist. Anyway, if you can getpast all these things, look at the ACTING. Here’s where brilliant actorstake a somewhat mediocre script, no, not mediocre, rather- I’d say moresystematic, or trite, in other words, and weave some powerful drama. Thescenes between Cate Blanchett and Giovanni Ribisi carried me through thisfilm- Ribisi gives a tour-de-fource preformance, very intense. Even thoughI know it won’t- there are too many potential nominees out there already-heshould garner and Oscar nomination, but I doubt it’ll happen,unfortunately.The pain with which Ribisi imbues his character is quite powerful, andveryeloquent. All in all, I’d give it seven outta ten stars.

We all know what a hidden gem Cate Blanchett is to the film community.Sheproves herself yet again in this film. Why it may not fall into one of thebest films of the year, it is definitely one of the best acted I’ve seensofar. Cate Blanchett decided to show her flexibility once again( its ashameshe didn’t get more recognition for her brilliant performance in TalentedMr. Ripley). The shock of this film however lies in Giovanni Ribisi. Iadmitto paying little attention to him before…but this was quite showy roleforhim. Oscar worthy? Most definitely but its doubtful he will benominated.Hillary Swank made a wise decision in her role also. It took me a whiletosettle down and realize it was her with long hair. Katie Holmes venturesinto a brave new world with this one. I wish we could have seen more ofRosemary Harris. Her skills never fail to amaze me. Kinnear also did agreatjob. I was least impressed with keanu Reeves. I don’t know what it isaboutKeanu. It just seems like despite his role, he always seems to throw offthat Bill and Ted appearance to me. I’m doubtful that he will ever shrugitoff.Overall, great effort by Billy Bob Thornton. This movie proves thatcastingsometimes can make or break a film. I gave it an 8!

I saw this movie for one reason, and one reason only. Katie Holmes.Sheis absolutely stunning, and her breasts are my idea of perfection. Intermsof the movie, it’s not very good. Oh well, it’s predictable, withmediocreacting from a talented cast. The southern drawls get really old,especiallyHillary Swank’s pathetic attempt at one. Keanu gives his usual incredibleacting performance. Cate Blanchett is very good. You wont be surprisedbythis movie in the least, it’s as predictable as it gets. Also, look fortheoddly placed fiddle player, he really serves no purpose other than to justbe weird, freaky, and above all, cool. Where is the dueling banjo scenethough? This needs more of Katie Holmes’ breasts, and less of otherpeoplereciting badly written lines in terrible southern accents.

Everything in this film clicked for the first hour and fifteen minutes.Theperformances were excellent (even from the usually lackluster KeanuReeves),the Gothic atmosphere was strong, and the dialogue was believable andinteresting. All of a sudden, during the unrealistic trial scene, "TheGift" became a formulaic mess of a film. It went from a tense,psychological thriller to a cliché-ridden horror flick, complete withastoundingly predictable twist ending.This film could have been a great thriller, but by the end, it settlesintomiddle-of-the-road blandness.

Jessica Lange would have done this kind of movie back in the1980s(probably directed by Sam) but here it’s Cate Blanchett who has"TheGift". She can locate the body of a murdered (by Reeves?) girl who’s engagedto Greg.The problem with these kind of movies is that the real killer is evidentearly on. Still there’s some good scenes with Blanchett and her kids, with apolice officer, and with Ribisi.I couldn’t recommend this - it’s an average movie but there’s not alotto remember. Even Reeves fans will be disappointed.

Ok, that might be a bit harsh. The film was great from the start to aboutten minutes from the end when it began to fall apart, mainly due toRaimi’sefforts to fit a ‘twist’ in that ultimately didn’t gel. But this is almostmy only criticism.

The thing that really made this film work was the casting, most notablyCateBlanchett. She looked luminous and really anchored the film and held ittogether. She portrayed her character with real sympathy, displaying theconfusion and pain her gift has caused her, but never allowed her to fallapart or appear weak. She was a strong, credible yet fragile character.

Keanu Reeves did a little less well and those looking for evidence thattheman can act will have to wait longer I’m afraid. His character, DonnieBarksdale, is required to do little more than shout and look menacingwhichis all Keanu can do really. That’ll be him perfectly suited to hischaracterthen.

All together the cast, including Greg Kinnear and Katie Holmes, doesgreat,with the one exception being Hilary Swank who is woefully underused asDonnie’s long suffering wife. Special mention also has to go to GiovanniRibisi who excelled as troubled mechanic Buddy Cole. It’s about time hestarted getting more recognition in Hollywood and hopefully now’s thetime.

Overall it’s a film I recommend to anyone looking for a good spinetingler.Not too gory, so I was surprised by the 18 cert it got here in Ireland.It’snot quite as jumpy as What Lies Beneath either, but it doesn’t really setout to be. What it is is a good old fashioned chiller: eerie, slowburning,character driven and definitely worth the admission fee.

Cate is once again outstanding…I think you should watch this film.It is very good !I’m looking forward to Cate’s next performance.

A fantastic performance by Cate Blanchett can’t make up enough for what isan average script, and the appearance of the always awful KeanuReeves.

Psychic Blanchett starts getting visions of murder and
mayhem, and ofcourse, they start coming true [hey, this is Hollywood after all!] and wehave the predictable caricature police officer in red neck land, who doubtsher etc etc.

Mother Blanchett is struggling with bringing up 3 kids, and an excellentsupporting role by Greg Kinnear also makes this worth alook.

read comments (0)

The Cell

Previously seeing the movie, I was disgusted. I was expecting somethingalong the lines of thrilling, with a touch of PSYCHO but after viewing it Ifound it nothing more than mentally disturbing. It was indeed unique butdefinitely not to my liking. There’s nothing more to say except that it wasbeyond weird. It was sickening, shocking and disturbing. You will eitherlove it or hate it. I wouldn’t recommend it.

You can say what you like, but it’s a rare Hollywood movie that leaves youbaffled at its content, rather than the fact that it ever got made. I thinkthere should be MORE pretentiousness in the movies, not less; the future ofCGI lies surely not in trying to ‘realistically’ recreate lostcivilisations, or in mimicking monumental natural disasters, where you canquite clearly and bathetically see the joins, than in magicking up strangeworlds of pure artifice, like ‘Mission Impossible 2′ and this.

Any film would find it hard to beat that opening - Jennifer Lopez,resplendent in a feathery white, regal gown, astride an ebony black horseriding across the desert, huge, gleaming, yet miraculously tidy sandscapes,a tiny, beautifully white dot climbing these ephemeral mountains. It’s likea magnificent parody of a Depeche Mode video, in colour. I could watchhours of this - doesn’t everyone want to see their dreams filled with a hugebudget and otherworldly colour?

Then the problems start. The dream figures talk, the frayed box of Freudian tricks is opened, narrative, interpretation, explanation, purpose, all thethings dreams expel, force their way in, like a clumping great boot stompingon a bubble. This is why subsequent ‘dreams’ or entering into others’unconscious, feel like a bit of a cheat - we are always aware of theirnarrative significance, or their status as character shorthand - when oneterrible crisis is reduced to childhood abuse, I groaned.

And the ‘real world’ of the detective wins. These two worlds, that of thedetective, and that of the dream adventurer/’psychologist’ are gendered in ahackneyed way - the male detective active in solving the crime, can invadethe passive world of the female, where she is active only in her mind, butnot the other way round.

And just when you’re enjoying the exquisite dream worlds, you are thuddinglyreminded of the plot - those worlds are so compelling that I don’t thinkanyone would have noticed if we got lost there - when the ‘real’ and ‘dream’worlds got confused for a brief moment, I though the narrative was going toexcitingly collapse into real ambiguity, but have no fear. Because inoutline the whole thing is quite traditional, maverick cop, psychologicalcrime story etc. You hope, like ‘Vertigo’ or ‘Memento’, that Novak (see!)will get sucked into a demented mental labyrinth, but he recovers hispsychological gung-ho with unconvincing ease.

Never mind. The encouraging thing is that films like this are being madeand making money. The dreams themselves are full of wonderful visualregisters, my favourite being the echoes of Joseph Cornell, the Marquis deSade and Bollywood. The emphasis on sexual traumas is predictable butrefreshingly direct. Some day we will be able to ditch stories and wallowin this expensive fusion of desire, colour, set-design, beautiful stars asan abstract whole that doesn’t need explaining. Until then,enjoy.

I guess my opinion is divergent from most comments.I watched the movie without even having seen the trailer, totally blank inoutlook. And boy, was I in for a surprise.I have always been weary of movies only made to indulge in a music star’sfeeble acting forays. And this movie managed to turn out to be the bestexample yet.The plot was laughable cliche, the dialogues were pathetic, and the actingwas in a league of its own - unfortunately.The only reason me and my friends did not walk out of this movie, wasbecause we wanted to see confirmed the excruciating b-movie ending. Atleastin that respect we were not disappointed - the ending was right on parwiththe rest of the movie.It’s a flick best forgotten - wish I could.shiver

One of the most violent and disgusting movies in recentyears.Great special effects, but the lack of humanism of the story isshocking.It does not matter here if the acting is right or the art direction iscutting-edge.There’s a moral problem regarding the way you give all this violence tothepublic just looking for some profit.Film is another thing. It’s art and sense of human feelings.

This is just a Jennifer Lopez music video. Pouting lips, a shot of her inher panties by the fridge. It will take more then a shot of her ass tomakethis a worthwhile movie experience.

What is it with our need to see movies about serial killers? Do theythinkwe really need to see them or have they run out of anything thing else towrite about. Silence of the Lambs and Seven should be adequate fill onthisentire subject.

This was such a bad movie that I just can’t seem to get beyond the wordsuck! The concept of the ability to go into another person’s subconsciouswas interesting, and some of the visuals were neat; however, lose thesubject matter and provide a little more meat to the story.

The only thing that made me feel better about watching this movie is thatIsaw the Boondock Saints and Get Real the following evening. Low budget,solid acting, everything that the Cell wasn’t and will neverbe.

This film, ostensively delves into the sick mind of a notorious serialkiller, Carl Stargher. In reality is seems more like a stylish way to panderto the depravity of many viewers. One wonders about the sanity of the writerand producers of this type of stomach turning work. I am definitely forfreedom of expression, but this film makes a very strong case forcensorship.

I saw this movie on the shelf and thought by reading the blurbs on the backthat it sounded interesting. I started to watch it and thought the directorreally knew how to use cinematography. Lighting and arrangement wereperfect, color was superb. I was even getting interested in the plot. (Thiswas just the beginning.) Somewhere soon though I realized this was just apiece of self-indulgent crap. I really feel the director is not a reallysmart person-just like me. But, don’t we want smart people like StevenSpeilberg, or Spike Lee, or Soderbergh, etc to direct the movies we watch.All the effort Singh put in to this is such a waste of time, his and mine.The worst thing was wasting Jennifer Lopez, and Vince Vaughn, and the otherfine actors, as well as me feeling at the end that I didn’t care if anybodylived or died in the end, (except for the dog.)

This movie might have been good if it didn’t rely on camera tricks andJennifer Lopez. She’s busy slinging tacos again. The chick can dance andput out, but does she have any real talent? Her movies all suck and hermusic was trash that makes Brittney Spears’ music look profound. This isthe same chick who cut down Cameron Diaz who buy the way is way hotter andmore likeable). Vince Vaughn is the man but his character is tired andcliche’d. I don’t get why he took this part. I saw this with a chick whohated horror movies but loved Jennifer Lopez. We argued and fought becauseshe actually lied and said she liked this movie, and I know she was lyingbecause she hated a much superior Se7en… go figure.

The following is in My opinion and may contain spoilers.

I really wanted to like The Cell. The good things that people say aboutthis film such as great visual effects and great acting by the film’sactors maybe true and the killer may have looked bizarre and the musicis good by Howard Shore but that is all that is great about this film.Why don’t I like it? Simply because this movie show its sucky scenes.It seems like the film can’t make up its mind if it wants to showdisturbing things or if it wants to show happy things. The film shouldhave in My opinion took a diffe
rent turn with the story. Why must therebe Clive Barker like stuff in this movie? Some of the things were justcompletely unnecessary. Only see The Cell if you like really strangethings like the killer hung by hooks and other weird things in filmsotherwise stay way from this worthless junk!

This is one of J-lo’s best performances in a film to date. She starshere as a psychologist who agrees to undergo hypnosis in order to enterthe mind of a serial killer who murders women for thrills. The FBIbelieves this is their last resort as every last attempt to catch thesicko has only led to more victims being kidnapped and more bodiesturning up. Vince Vaughn plays an FBI agent hot on the sicko’s trail.The best part of the film are the visually stunning images that you seeonce Jennifer Lopez’s character enters the mind of the killer. The plotbegins to unravel as she proceeds from one corner of his mind toanother, revealing his past, childhood and other darks secrets untilshe finally comes face to face with the monster within.

read comments (0)

Shanghai Noon

Another action comedy; another hollywood-grafts-a-story-onto-a-kung-fuscript. Even so, it’s a *Jackie Chan* action comedy, and so itworks!Owen Wilson is a little off-putting as the outlaw-spouting-psychobabbleat first, but once you get used to him it’s actually quiteamusing.Nobody does action-comedy like Jackie Chan, unlike in "Rush Hour",Hollywoodhas finally figured out that the best thing to do for JC is to just getoutof his way and let him entertain. Good work all around.

This is not the type of film that I normally watch. Two of my friendsinsisted that they thought it would be stupid but that it really was funnyand that I should watch it. I watched it. It was not funny. At all. It wasreally bad. I mean really bad. I don’t think it is even worth mentioningthat both the editing and cinematography were at times startlingly bad, orthat the plot line (which is full of holes) was completely predictable andstupid. These things we would of course expect. The so called humor is alsobad. Virtually every joke in this film is recycled. I’ve seen them all used(better) before. Also, the writing for this movie is soooo bad. Laughablyso. (Yes, I did laugh a few times during this, but it was only when Icouldn’t believe just how bad it was). The writer must think very lowly ofhis audience. Not only are his characters completely implausible, saying anddoing stupid things, but at times the film is completelyirrational.

If you enjoy Jackie Chan movies, this is without a doubt his best in thecomedy genre. Paired with Owen Wilson in a classic western adventure, thetwo play off one another with hilarious results. As Chan seeks to rescuePrincess Pei Pei, kidnapped from the Forbidden City in China, chance pairsthe two as unwitting partners in a chase that had me laughing out loudthroughout the movie. The action sequences are also entertaining andvintage Chan. This is one of the best comedies in a longtime….

This is a really cool movie. A really, really good movie. Jackie’s backwith Owen Wilson as his mismatched partner this time. They’re a great duo,nearly as good as Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker. Lucy Liu is in this too andshes very hot. I’m not going to waste anybody’s time with my review so I’mgoing to put it in my own words: Great movie.

Overall the movie has some good action sequences and it is very funny. Iloved it from beginning to end. Rating 10 out of 10.

[CONTAINS SPOILERS]

Our story opens in Forbidden City, China, 1881. Princess PeiPeihas been kidnapped and ransomed for 100,000 pieces of gold. Theroyaltranslator and three Imperial guards would accompany him toCarsonCity, Nevada to deliver the ransom. The translator wanted to bringalonghis nephew, clumsy guard Chon Wang (say it out loud).The train trip to Carson City was cut short when a bandofrobbers, headed by swashbuckler Roy O’Bannon, who really isn’t averygood outlaw, boarded the train. He was accompanied by three otherguys.One of them was Wallace, who was very, very mean. He killed ChonWang’suncle, and later on when Wang escaped the train and foundO’Bannonburied in the desert, he blamed him and left him for dead.Chon Wang’s travels took him to an Indian camp whereheinadvertantly got married. His wife would follow him undercover.Wang met up with Roy again in a saloon in town. A fightensuses.Wang has the fastest hands the old west has ever seen, butunfortunatelyhe, along with Roy, were thrown in jail. They escaper curtosy ofWang’swife. Roy agrees to accompany Wang to Carson City, but firstteacheshim the basics of being a cowboy; Princess Pei Pei wasbeingheld hostage by Lo Fong, a former guard turned traitor.

After escaping a lynching, Wang and Roy rescue the princessandhide out at an old church. Meeting them there were the otherthreeguards, Lo Fong, and Marshall Van Cleef, a psychotic killer. He’sbeenafter Roy for years. Wang took out Lo Fong with flying colors andRoyput an end to Van Cleef’s evil ways. Then, Roy’s old "friends"including Wallace show up but they’re taken care of.In the end, Chon Wang and Roy O’Bannon are made lawmen; averygood movie. Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson are great together. Ifyouliked Rush Hour, you’ll love this movie! I hear there’s asequel,Shanghai Knights, opening soon. I’ll bet it will be just as goodasShanghai Noon. If you’re a Jackie Chan fan, I recommend filmslikeRush Hour I & II, Twin Dragons, he was even in Enter the Dragon,which,sadly, was Bruce Lee’s last film, but I’ll bet Bruce would beproudof Jackie today. Owen Wilson fans, I suggest Meet the Parents,Zoolander, he’s even in The Cable Guy a little. So what areyouwaiting for, partners, check out Shanghai Noon today!

-

Enjoyable film, but kowtowing to the belief that there is a need to havestereotypical Hollywood Indian talk and mannerisms as well as someunacceptable language detracts from the charm of this film. The actingability of the blonde-haired costar was wanting.

When I first saw this movie in theater I thought it was a perfect balanceofcomedy and action as well as a fun story. After getting it on DVD andwatching it another 5-10 times I havn’t changed my mind.Great fun ’nuff said

SHANGHAI NOON (2000) *** Jackie Chan, Owen Wilson, LucyLiu, Brandon Merrill, Roger Yuan, Xander Berkeley. (Dir: TomDey)

Jackie Chan put his international superstardom to the test in thisrambunctious fish-out-of-water buddy film set in the wild, wild westand succeeds in this his second attempt at teaming with acomedic partner (see `Rush Hour’ with Chris Tucker which hasset the trend in motion).Chan stars as a member of China’s Forbidden City domainduring the late 19th century as a lowly servant who winds up as amember of a party to rescue their princess who has gone abroadto America only to become kidnapped with a high ransom of goldin demand for her return.As Chon Wang, the nephew to the interpreter, he finds himself ona train en route to Carson City, Nevada only to become a renegadeavenger when the train is ambushed by thieves who’ve killed hiselderly uncle in the process. Led by amiable bungling cowpokewanna-be outlaw Roy O’ Bannon (the genially goofy Wilson) thegang attempt to blow the train’s safe only for it to be hurtled off abridge due to the overuse of TNT. Wang and O’Bannon tumble offthe express and eventually become partners after a series ofsurprisingly funny events which occur including Wang’s inductioninto an Indian tribe resulting in his marriage to a sexy squaw (thestriking Merrill) who tags along for the journey to release PrincessPei Pei (the saucy Liu from `Ally McBeal’) from a disgruntledformer member of her court, Lo Fong (Yuang) and anunscrupulous marshal named Van Cleef (Berkeley actually doinga mean impersonation of the late Lee Van Cleef).The duo become enmeshed in many shenanigans including afew fights, gunfights and a very funny brothel bathroom bathsequence involving a non-sensical drinking game.Chan’s unique fisticuffs involving the martial arts with everythingbut the kitchen sink as a sparring prop (his ponytail, a hatchet, arack of moose antlers, etc.) and his persona of a real-life WarnerBros. cartoon hybrid of Buster Keaton slapstick, Gene Kellyfinesse and Bruce Lee lethal ass-kickings are put to the test withaplomb. Much could be said the same for the low-key, assuredknuckleheaded insouciance of Wilson (who will always be to me,Dignan from his debut in `Bottle Rocket’) who manages to blendhis dumb/cocky likeability to a genuine comradarie with Chan inlooking out for his sudden partner’s greenhorn status.

The action sequences are fast but not furious, always on theborder of a Three Stooges act gone awry, and the teaming of theodd couple a key factor to make up for some of the film’s familiarity(with occasional spurts of originality including a villain’s offing anopponent with a cinematic first, wielding an oyster shell to thejugular: death by bi-valve (!) and the use of
spontaneous urine toescape from jail; don’t ask, just trust me on this!)Chan may breathe some fresh air into his long, weary career as adaredevil action star insisting on doing his own stunts even if itmeans breaking a funny bone in the process.

(Original Date of Review - February 12, 2005)

There are tons of mindless, worthless, no name westerns out there. EvenJohn Wayne and Clint Eastwood have one or two films nobody wants to puttheir hands on even if Blockbuster or Rogers is selling them for $9.99.Now in the 21st century, westerns have practically died out with thosefilms now having many references to history or western context.

One breed of film that hasn’t been around as long can be just asentertaining. Martial Arts. From Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, and Jet Li,martial arts are fun-filled action films. Even a newfound Tony Jaa hasburst into the martial arts genre with his new film Ong-Bak: The ThaiWarrior, out in theatres this weekend.

However, when you take both films and smash them together, add a lovedmartial arts star (Jackie Chan), and have a comedic funny-man torepresent the western front (Owen Wilson), you get an awesome new breedof film I like to call an "Eastern".

Taking place in the 19th century (if memory serves correct), Chon Wang(played by Chan; Chinese for John Wayne) plays an Imperial Guard of theChinese emperor. When their beloved Princess Pei Pei (Lucy Liu) iskidnapped by their mortal enemies, Wang offers himself to personallyfind her where she’s been kidnapped: The US of A. Now in the Wild West,Chon finds himself in the good ole’ state of Nevada. Meanwhile, RoyO’Bannon (Owen Wilson) is a crook that loots trains and saloons withhis group of friends. They cross paths and they soon enough, theyventure through a tough adventure. The unlikely duo teaches each other,as they learn new things that lead to tons of action and tons ofcomedy. Together, they help each other get what they want in an actionfilled western-style adventure film.

Overall, Shanghai Noon is a great action film. It’s got a great, uniquecombo of both martial arts action and classic eastern shoot-out scenes.This combo is brought to life with the personality and likeness fromboth Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson. However, the film drags a bit andsometimes, you feel a lot could be cut out. The drama seems out ofplace and doesn’t seem very well done, as they should have concentrateda bit more energy and effort into it. Lucy Liu does a nice job with herrole though and the action scenes, both martial arts and western areimpressive enough to stand on its own. Definitely a Chan classic.Wonder what two action genres Hollywood will combine next and maybewith their crazy ideas can come random success.

My Rating: 7.5/10 (A High 7.5)

Eliason A.

Shang Hai Noon is one of those rare movies that transcends several genres.

The comedy is first rate with Jackie Chan playing straight man to OwenWilson’s fantastic "clown". (For American movies, these are Jackie’s bestroles — e.g. Rush Hour).

The martial arts is some of the best I have ever seen. Having practiced MAfor 16 years, I can say that this is the REAL THING. It’s tough to pick afavorite fight scene; there are three specific ones which are each veryspecial.

The Horseshoe Scene, though, is one of the best examples (ever) of JackieChan’s talent — it’s one of the most difficult forms in all of MA and heabsolutely nails it.

Fight coordinator Yuen Biao is significantly more imaginative and true tothe Form than many (any?) of his colleagues, including Yuen Wo Ping (manyJet Li’s films and Crouching Tiger, Hidden [Wires, oops] Dragon). If therewas any "wire-work" in this movie, it certainly wasn’tobvious.

(I must state here that I am not a fan of the absolute brutality which isemphasized by Jet Li, Steven Segal or many of the others. If you enjoybrutality, this film isn’t for you.)

While the martial arts is spectacular, it is just one component of a verygood film. The direction and editing are quite notable. There are severalparallel storylines which are interlaced very nicely. Also, several of theaction scenes have parallel events which come together seamlessly. Thewholemovie has very nice "flow" to it.

The acting is also first-rate. Roger Yuan, Xander Berkeley, and WaltGroggins are each great villains (both believable and despicable). LucyLiuis quite regal (as well as drop-dead gorgeous) as the princessPei-pei.

Even the music is great and well-timed to dramatize the correspondingsequences.

I will say that some of the comedy is a bit ‘cornball’, but it’s all ingoodfun.

Overall, I would say this movie is quite simply a whole lot offun.

9 out of 10!

read comments (0)

The Adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle

"There has never been an effective method of destroying a cartoon characteruntil now."

"What about that movie ‘Roger Rabbit’?"

"SHUT UP! This is totally different!"

Someone else noted the similarity between "The Adventures of Rocky &Bullwinkle" and "Last Action Hero" in that both involve people escaping froma form of film (cinema, TV) into the real world; I’d extend that to take inthe short-lived TV show "Once A Hero," about a comic book character whofinds out that people are losing faith in him and goes to the real world toset it right. There’s one crucial difference, however - the latter twodidn’t really work, and ultimately neither does this movie… but it comes alot closer than the other two, and certainly closer than any other ofUniversal’s lamentable attempts to bring TV shows to the bigscreen.

Kenneth Lonergan’s script has promise, but he and director Des McAnuff neverreally realise it; it’s frequently quite funny, and more than a littlestrange (the sight of Robert DeNiro as Fearless Leader dancing after thesuccessful RBTV (Really Bad Television) experiment has to be seen to bebelieved) - it’s best not to think over it, but to just go with the flow,watch for the in-jokes and place names (Crymia River? "J" Ward?), and enjoythe legendary June Foray and Keith "son of the late Bill" Scott’s vocals(Scott is also the narrator, in for the late William Conrad).

Though not really as memorable as the show itself and suffering from someattempts at sentimentality that don’t work (and are at odds with the wholeethos anyway; compare the vomitous sub-Disney end credit ballad to MarkMothersbaugh’s energetic variations on the Steiner theme and tell me whichone works better) the endless puns abound, and DeNiro and Russo are greatfun as Natasha and Fearless Leader. (Because the cartoon is mostly unknownin Britain - unlike Scooby-Doo, alas - a lot more notice was given over hereto the great man "dumbing down" somewhat.) Jason Alexander isn’t quite soeffective as Boris, though; and Pink Power Ranger-lookalike* Piper Perabomust be the least likely FBI agent in screen history. Then again, perhapsthat was the intention. And Coyote Ugly she is NOT.

"The Adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle" could have done with less cameos("But I’m the real Karen Sympathy!" pleads our heroine. "Yeah, and I’m JohnGoodman," says a traffic cop played by John Goodman), the effects aren’t allthey could be, and it’s hard not to think that Pinky and the Brain couldhave done a better job in a third of the time; but while it’s never asenjoyable as "George of the Jungle" it’s infinitely better than "DudleyDo-Right." And "The Flintstones." And "The Flintstones In Viva Rock Vegas."And so on. I’d still rather see the original show, however.

*The Amy Jo Johnson version, obviously.

Let me start by saying: OUCH! Watching this movie was physically painfulandnearly made me vomit. It is a crime against humanity. I never believed inthe devil, but some master of evil had to corrupt Booby D into doing thiscrap. And Jason Alexander is damaged goods as well. This movie makesBattlefield Earth look Oscar worthy. CRAP!!

When Rocky and Bullwinkle are smashed into full filtered reality, they mustwork together with an FBI agent (Piper Perabo) to stop their arch enemyFearless Leader (Robert De Niro) along with Natasha and Boris (Rene Russoand Jason Alexander). Along the way, they meet many different characterseach who have their own way of making funny stuff happen.

The cast is great. There are numerous cameos by many great stars, KenanThompson, Kel Mitchell, Randy Quaid, James Rebhorn, John Goodman, WhoopiGoldberg and David Alan Grier all have their part to play in this wittysatire.

If you were a fan of the original TV show, then this movie is for you. It isalso a good rent if you are looking for something refreshing and differentor you are in a tight spot and need a kids movie.

The acting is pretty hokey, but it is allowed because it only got itself upto a PG rating (because of one use of the word "damn" from the film’snarrarator). This is a good movie, not anything like Oscar material, that’sfor sure. But it makes for a good change of pace. THE ADVENTURES OF ROCKYAND BULLWINKLE gets 3/5.

I remember watching this horrid piece of a movie one night on HBO and assoon as the movie was over I felt my brain go numb. My God, this was anawful, awful, horrible excuse for a movie… Bad puns were likecockroachescrawling all over it, enabling it to bring anyone who had no clue of what"Rocky and Bullwinkle" is to their knees in pain.

All in all, this "Rocky and Bullwinkle" movie sucks very bad, unless youarea fan of the old series…

Maybe it was the many puns or hilarious play-ons, but "The Adventures ofRocky & Bullwinkle" is one of the most enjoyable comedies I haveseen.

Robert DeNiro leads an all-star cast that includes Rene Russo, JasonAlexander and newcomer Piper Perabo in a comedy that will knock everyone’ssocks off. I was very impressed by everyone in this film especially De Nirobecause this is quite a departure from his dramatic and actionroles.

If her performance in this film is any indication; Piper Perabo, asurprisingly talented newcomer, who also has a resemblance with ReneeZelwegger, will have a long and prosperous career. I subsequently realizedthat she was more than just a pretty face, she was a real talented actressif she puts forth the effort.

Another aspect of the film that impressed me were the puns and play-ons thewriter came up with since it were that made the film that much moreenjoyable to watch as they were able to poke fun at others and yet still befunny enough where it didn’t become silly.

"The Adventures Of Rocky & Bullwinkle" far exceded my expectations of beingone of the best made from a television show. I hope everyone can enjoy thisfilm as much as I did because it is sure to make you laugh throughout themovie. This is a must-see movie for all ages to enjoy.

THE ADVENTURES OF ROCKY AND BULLWINKLE (2000) ** Rene Russo, JasonAlexander, Piper Perabo, Randy Quaid, Robert De Niro, (Voices of June Forayand Keith Scott), (Cameos: Carl Reiner, Jonathan Winters, Billy Crystal,Whoopi Goldberg, John Goodman, Janeane Garofalo).

Jay Ward’s classic cult cartoon comedy team of Moose & Squirrel are backand this time they’re larger than life on the big screen in this ratherflat-footed attempt at a resurrection for two of the most beloved animatedcharacters of all time.

This time screenwriter Kenneth Lonegran employs the standard trademarks ofthe series (breaking down the fourth wall directly talking asides to theaudience, ironic dispositions, silly puns and on-the-sly knowing winks attheir familiarity) but does so in a largely mirthless endeavor. The plot,such as it is, has our heroes Rocket J. Squirrel and Bullwinkle J. Moose(voiced by Foray who has been Rocky since the get go and Scott doing thehonors for the moose and replacing the late, great William Conrad as thesmart-aleck narrator) enter the virtual reality from ‘toon land when adevelopment girl in Hollywood inadvertently enlivens their notorious archnemesi Boris Badenov and Natasha and their evil despot Fearless Leader(played with gusto by long-time fans Alexander, Russo and De Niro, who alsoco-produced) who find themselves longing to rule the world by incorporatingthe masses to be hypnotized by Really Bad TV. This leads to involvement bythe FBI to seek help from our heroes with their emissary being the young,impressionable and darn right plucky Agent Karen Sympathy (sexy newcomerPerabo) to get the denizens of Frostbite Falls to New York as they race theclock and overcome the pitfalls set up by the dastardly Mutt & Je
ff team ofBoris & Natasha.

The premise is weak with the fact that the Cold War is over and is about astimely as the villain trio’s out-of-it attempts to plot in overruling thefree-world but then again so are the James Bond flicks. What really doesn’ttranslate well is the fact that the animated heroes interacting with thereal world a la `Roger Rabbit’. They work better on the small screen inretrospect and a lot of the interaction seems forced (except with the gungho energy to spare by the lissome Perabo, who actually breathes a freshpresence into every scene she’s in).

Alexander and Russo make for an amusing pair as the rotund Boris andstatuesque Natasha and De Niro even is passable with his thick accentedLeader (even aping his `Are you talkin’ to me?’ icon moment from `TaxiDriver’). But the pointless cameos by comedy stars like Crystal andGoldberg seem perfunctory (although it’s always a guilty pleasure to seeWinters at his battiest, although he’s surprisingly sedate in this setting).Maybe the next film they’ll let the duo work in their natural state of justanimation.

my little sister dragged me off to see this film

i can quiet honestly say it is the biggest load of rubbish i have ever seenand it pains me to admit i actually paid money to see thistrash.

save yourself the money and the pain and don’t see thisfilm.i fell asleep in the cinema for the first time during this film, thestoryline was rubbish, it wasn’t remotely funny or interesting.

please please please do yourself a favour and keep as far away from thistrash as possible, i doubt even your children will likeit.

Peeee Uewwww, what smells so bad? It’s this modern version of JayWard’s classic TV comedy. Jay must be turning over in his grave, I hopehis widow got a lot of money. Single worst piece of casting: JasonAlexander as Boris Baddinoff. This guy is acting poison in anycharacter other than playing himself on Seinfeld. The moose andsquirrel are now only props supporting a brain-dead FBI girl. If youare lucky enough to be familiar with the original TV show avoid thisdisgusting movie. I think I’m going to burn my copy before it stinks upthe house. Even the animation is worse. If you like this crap watch’Listen Up’, if you want good new animation watch the Simpsons.

I watched the Bullwinkle cartoons as a child but I probably didn’t geta lot of the humor back then. Several years ago the cartoons aired onmy local UPN station and I was able to appreciate the intelligence ofthe humor better.

In this movie, a lot of the silliness was really over the top and offthe wall, but it was the way I like it. I thought the voices of Rockyand Bullwinkle were done perfectly, and Bullwinkle is really funny whenhe’s dumb. While no one really gave Oscar-worthy performances, for whatthis was, many of the live-action actors did a good job. I wasn’t thathappy with Piper Perabo as Karen Sympathy except in one scene which Iwon’t mention where she was upset with Bullwinkle’s innocence andstupidity). Jason Alexander and Rene Russo made a good team as Borisand Natasha. I enjoyed Robert De Niro as Fearless Leader but this wasjust a fun role for him, not proof he can really act. I did like JohnGoodman in his brief appearance as a cop, Whoopi Goldberg as a judge,and Kenan and Kel as students at Bullwinkle’s alma mater.

Of course this movie made plenty of use of ‘breaking the fourthwall’–admitting to being only a movie. Many of the jokes using thistechnique were hilarious. And even though it wasn’t a cartoon, suchgimmicks as having characters suspended in the air just beforefalling–these were great simply because it’s not supposed to happen inthe ‘real’ world.

This was great, even if some might say it’s not in the same league withthe animated TV version.

Rocky and Bullwinkle. That a film could be that good…its the stuffmyths are formed from. It’s as though God were executive producer. WhenI was forced, back in my innocence, to watch this with my brother, Ishook my fist in an angry fist and said "WhyIOughta…" but mycomplaints were silenced when the majesty of this beautiful motionpicture washed over me, and rendered me speechless. The fact that Ifeel asleep is not a condemnation- oh no! I was simply captivated andput under its simple, facrical, ridiculous, but oh so charming spell.humour! So wonderfully silly! It’s acting? Clearly deliberately poor,to reflect the nature of the acting of comic films of that generation!Costumes, scenery, breathtaking! The Academy failed the film goingworld by not presenting Rocky And Bullwinkle (or, as I have dubbed it,The Most Wonderful and Beautiful and Spiritually Magnificent film,Ever, in the history of the world, Ever" the MWABASMFEITHOTWE forshort) the accolades it deserved. This will always be a best picturewinner, in my heart.

read comments (0)