The Santa Clause 2

Possibly the worst first 30 minutes to any movie that I watched all thewaythru. It was long, boring, and not the least funny. Finally the movietookoff and the last hour or so was very good, just a tad below the first one.Good santa vs. bad santa was funny, good reindeer chase scene. Mrs.clause,very hot.

The first Santa Clause was a decent holiday movie. The second is just overkill with a story that does not even try to be different. Tim Allen isgoodand goofy at the same time but this movie really did not have beenmade.

They is really no reason for it.

The Santa Clause 2 is lacking in a very key area that the first moviehad by the bushel - whimsy. The first Santa Clause was a deliciousholiday treat that has become a holiday tradition in my home. We hadvery big hopes for the sequel, considering they were handed greatmaterial for the follow-up - finding a Mrs. Claus for Santa. Andtruthfully, the best parts of this movie are the parts that take placewith Scott in the "real world" trying to find a wife. Yes, it'spredictable that Scott will hook up with his son's "bah, humbug"principal, but the journey is a lot of fun. Between the hilarious baddate with Molly Shannon's Christmas-lovin' character and thedelightfully whimsical scene where Scott magically transforms theboring teacher's Christmas party into a trip into everyone's innerchild, the holiday magic is there.

Unfortunately, there was the ugly other side to this movie - the scenestaking place back at the North Pole, where Santa's look-alike toyreplacement is wreaking havoc. Totally devoid of the whimsy that theother half of this movie achieves, the North Pole scenes drag thismovie down to mediocre. Let me count the ways the filmmakers wentwrong… Bernard is a totally different head elf from the first movie,and far less appealing. His character is more paranoid and spastic,which was absolutely the wrong way to go. Curtis the elf is obnoxious.I don't know who this kid is, but I hate him in every movie he's in.You simply do NOT give the "token fat kid" a major role in a featurefilm. It doesn't work, and neither does this kid as Curtis. (It is aREALLY, REALLY bad sign that Bernard is not slated to be in the thirdinstallment of Santa Clause - the Escape Clause. Instead, Curtis isevidently going to return as the new head elf. GAG. That bit of castingand plot line has "oh, no" written all over it.) They also changed thereindeer in the second movie. Instead of the intelligent, unspeakingcreatures that worked so well in several scenes in the first movie,they have been reduced to a fart joke. And now they can speak, thoughit's in a silly, cartoonish voice. Don't even get me started on "Chet"the redneck mentally-disturbed reindeer. What a nightmare.

So if you want whimsy and feelings of holiday delight, watch the firstmovie. Make that one your tradition. Santa Clause 2: The Mrs. Clause isa woeful sequel that you won't need to see more than once. Which isgood, because you won't WANT to see it more than once.

Saw this movie today with my wife. If you are reading this review, thenyouprobably know the plot.

If you saw Santa Clause (1) and liked it, then you should enjoy this movietoo. Most of the same actors in the first movie are in thisone.

This sequel returns Tim Allen and crew from the original movie as Santamustfind a wife before Xmas or he looses his job… An ok sequel that is abittoo busy with a toy imposter santa running the North Pole as a prison campwhile Santa himself is off looking for a wife. Fluffy stuff that ismoderately entertaining, but pretty silly. GRADE: C

First of all, let me say that I really enjoyed watching `The SantaClause’.I found the storyline to be original and entertaining for both childrenandadults. The humor was clean for the children yet sophisticated enough tokeep adults entertained. When the DVD came out I purchased it immediatelyso the kids (and I) could enjoy it over and over. I was eagerlyanticipating the sequel `The Santa Clause 2′ when I saw the theatricaltrailer at the movie theater. Unfortunately, I was a bit disappointedwhenwe finally went to see it. It was ok as a kid’s movie but it lacked a lotin the original storyline department. The story and the humor was dumbedway down to pander to kids and left very little for adults to enjoy. Iespecially did not care for the fact that they found it necessary in thesequel to have the reindeer talk like Scooby Doo. I’m not saying it’s abadmovie, I’m just saying that if you’re an adult and expecting anything likethe original, you will be disappointed.

It’s amazing to find a film that works so well on one level and so poorly onanother. The plotline with Santa dating is charming, funny, heartwarming, and worthevery minute of your time. Sure, it’s a bit predictable, but the chemistrybetween the two is almost timeless.And then there’s the other plotline. Without giving away any spoilers, theevents at the North Pole are bizarre and twisted. There are no characters you can orwant to identify with. And if you examine it from a kid’s perspective, there are afew events that might cause them a nightmare or two.Finally there are the animatronic reindeer. They’re just creepy andoccasionally gross. Yes, kids in my theater got a good laugh at that "one scene" whichwas given away in the trailers. But reindeer who talk like Gizmo from"Gremlins" and who are stupid, unclean, and ugly are not cute or funny; they’re gross. It’s a fine line and unfortunately, this movie crosses to the wrongside.There’s an easy solution: wait for the home video and FF over the badplotline while stopping to enjoy the good one. You’ll be rewarded with a pleasant viewing

experience.

I give this film mixed reviews because it got side-tracked from thepremiseof the film. If they had stuck to the 2 main issues of Santa finding awifeand dealing with his son being in trouble at school, the film would havebeen GREAT. Unfortunately they wasted a lot of time on an evil toy santawhich detracted from the film. The good parts were good enough I may buythe video when it comes out and just fast forward through the evil santasections. I loved the first one but will have to rate this one only 6 outof10.

It seems that this movie didn’t have the same feel the original captured.The time between the release of the sequel maybe the biggest factor. Themovie really reminded me of the original christmas episode of futurama.Theyleft out some very important things the original had. The whole jamesbondish thing with upgrades to the sleigh and suit was a very originalideathat was left out of this movie and kind of left me disappointed. I alsomayhave been angered by the appearance of Spencer Breslin to me he seems tobethe most annoying kid actor of this time. The original movie was releasedin1994 eight years is a little long for a sequel. Many of the youngerviewersor people that haven’t seen the original will appreciate what this moviehasbut personally it lacks the imagination of the first. I give it a 2 outof 5stars.

Well, it’s not quite as good ass the first movie, in my opinion. Mainlybecause I found the talking reindeer to be a little too cutesy and theydidn’t look as realistic as in the first movie. And Bernard the Arch Elfwasn’t as entertainng as in the first movie. But this movie does haveseveral things going for it. For one, all of the main actors who were in thefirst movie have returned for this one. And the relationship between Scottand the principal is very cute to watch. The new elf Curtis is entertaining,and so is Charlie’s little half sister. And the meeting of legendary figureswas an intersting idea, although I think the Easter Bunny could have lookeda little more realistic, or at least a little less ridiculous
.

read comments (0)

The Rules of Attraction

I personally rather enjoyed this sleeper film. It recently aired on oneof the premium cable networks and I sat riveted as I watched. Avarycertainly uses a very stylized approach and yet manages to capture theflavor of Bret Easton Ellis’ novel, which originally was set in 1985 inBennington, VT. I thought, as I watched, how cleverly Avary brought thefilm up-to-date and still kept the basic flavor of the novel’s plot andkept true to the central characters. I was rather surprised at some ofthe other comments that the film was trashy, vulgar and boring. I foundnone of that to be true. Avary certainly didn’t sugarcoat anythingwhich I found to be a refreshing change from many of today’s films outof Hollywood. He didn’t stick to trite formula, but rather he displayedan art-house kind of feel in presenting the story. I thought the actorswere all well cast and convincing. I laughed, cried and cringed duringthe film and I believe it is going to end up a cult classic.

This is an awful movie and I feel like I wasted 110 minutes of my life forwatching it. The characters are aweful, the Sean Bateman character iscompletely different in each seen and although one could say it is due tohis mental illness, it doesn’t work. The movie tried to feed off of thepopularity of American Psycho (which was their first mistake, becausealthough it was good, it could not fuel a sequel with completely differentcharacters). I feel sick just thinking about this movie. And previousreviews were correct in discussing how pretentious this moviewas.

All I have to say is: DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!!

I found this movie to be utterly repulsive and morally repugnant.AmericanPsycho was on a much different level from this movie for a number ofreasons: 1) The direction was seamless. 2) The characters had charisma.3) It had a dark sense of humor that made the movie ironic, althoughhighlydisturbing. The Rules of Attraction is just as disturbing, but withoutthehumor or irony. This movie is so far from reality that it makes DavidLynchlook like a documentarist. Granted, I haven’t read the book. But I cansumup the purpose of the movie in one word. In fact, after hearing thisword,the movie might even make sense. The word is…

This movie was just as horrible as American Beauty, and the Blair WitchProject, even as bad as Teaching Mrs. Tingle! This was definitely one ofthe worst movies that I’ve ever seen! Except the sex scene with KateBosworth, this movie was just sick, perverted, disturbing and alarming.Horrible choices for all of the actors and actresses involved as evidencedby its total U.S. take at the box office. Oh well!

At the "The End of the World Party" Lauren (Shannyn Sossamon) isintroduced, we go back in time in a really cool sequence. Paul (IanSomerhalder) is introduced, and again we go back in time and again itlooks pretty cool. Sean Bateman (James Van Der Beek) is introduced, andthen the opening credits appear before the story really starts, sometime earlier than the party.

We learn that Sean Bateman is a drug-dealer and Paul is gay or may bebi-sexual because he had a thing with Lauren. We arrive on the "TheEdge of the World Party" where Paul and Sean meet. Paul invites Seanfor a party the next day.

The next day starts with a visually great sequence where Lauren andSean meet. They both have a class on Saturday that isn’t there. Left inthe screen we see Sean, right we see Lauren, even during theirconversation. Then both the cameras get together and we have one screenagain. Sean was getting secret love letters and after the way they meethe thinks Lauren is the one who is sending them. Later that next day.On the party, a "Pre-Saturday Night Party Party", Paul explains to Seanwhy he is late. Sean has no idea what he is talking about. Paul is inlove with him but all Sean is thinking about is Lauren. Sex with Laurenactually, on the "Dressed to Get Screwed Party". What happens from thatpoint on I will not reveal, accept for one thing. After all this Victor(Kip Pardue) is introduced, in again a great sequence. He is theex-boyfriend of Lauren, a friend of Sean and he used have somethingwith Paul as well…

For me the movie was not really about the story. It was not bad and hadsome good laughs in it as well, but what was so amazing was the visualstyle and the way the whole thing was presented to us. I talked aboutthe split screen and the introducing of the characters. But also lookthe way a snowflake is used to turn into a tear. If you are able toadmire those things, can handle a little sex, violence and drug use,you will like this movie. I know I did.

I really regret every second spent on watching this movie. The direction wasbad and the acting was lifeless. It’s like that the leads are repeatingmemorized lines through out the movie.

the thing that the director of the film is so happy about is the backwardmovement in the beginning of the film. Regretfully I say that this was theworst part of the movie. It’s so time-wasting to watch the same scene 3times for three different characters. He could’ve made it as a direct cutwith references that show that these events happened at the same time.

The plot, if any, was SO SLOW!!! even though, we couldn’t feel thecharacters being developed on screen. It’s like the whole movie is just likeeveryday life for the characters with no surprises.

I’d give this one a miss if i were you.

1/10 (simply because there are no zeroes)

The one thing I do I have to say I liked most about this movie is theediting and the camera angles, very well done. The movie itself falls shortof what it could have been. The scenes with Paul are a little too gay. Thesuicide scene is powerful though. I also liked the whole thing with Victorreciting his whole Europe visit. The movie just didn’t do it for me butit’s not a bad movie. 5.5/10

All those bad comments compelled me to take action. Truly this is one of thebest college movies ever made, Stunning actors and produced by one of thegreatest Directors who have ever faced the earth!

James Van Der Beek delievers the greatest performence of his career (He is agod, sent to make all other actors look bad - exept for Pacino), withShannyn Sossamon as the uncrowned princess of this universe. But all in all,the whole cast is stuning, giving it all they got, and leave you praying formore………

And with all that said, GO SEE IT, GO WEEP and GO CRAZY!

A+

THE RULES OF ATTRACTION (2002)

starring:James Van Der Beek, Shannyn Sossoman, Ian Somerhalder, Kip Pardue, JessicaBiel, Thomas Ian Nicholas, Cliffton Collins, Swoosie Kurtz, Faye Dunaway,Kate Bosworth.

plot:Sean Bateman (James Van Der Beek) is a rich, drug dealing, womanizer inCamden College who falls in love with the beautiful and innocent Lauren(Shannyn Sossoman), but she is in love with another womanizer named Victor(Kip Pardue) who doesn’t even remember who she is. Meanwhile, Paul Denton(Ian Somerhalder) has a major crush on Sean. Poor, pretty rich kids in amessed up love triangle.

the bad:The whole drug dealer subplot was stereotypical and added nothing to thestory.

the good:Everything is great!

The characters are real, the direction is beautiful, it has a nice mix ofdrama, comedy, and suspense, nice sad subplots (including a sad suicidescene), everything is just great!

10/10

This movie is really something. If you think it’s just another collegemovie - watch it and find out it’s not.

I was a little bit sceptic about "Dawson" (James Van Der Beek) in themain role, but I have to admit that he’s a talented actor. He does the"bad guy" very well.

And then we have Ian Somerhalder as Paul… Can’t take my eyes of him.He’s very sexy and beautiful. His meeting with Dick is a must see forev
eryone, especially gay men.

The story? It’s about love, sex, drugs and… Well, never mind thestory. It’s the way of telling it that makes this movie great!

read comments (0)

The Salton Sea

1st watched 10/2/2002 - 5 out of 10(Dir- D.J. Caruso):Schizophrenic movie about, I believe, a schzophrenic man. This movie withVal Kilmer, had two sides to it literally. One story is about adrug-crazedman who went off the edge after his wife’s murder and makes a livingrattingagainst other drug dealers. The other story is about a man who goes tomajor lengths to find his wife’s murderer(even disguising himself as adrug-crazed man). The problem is that we believe the 1st story more thanthe 2nd, and Kilmer does a better job displaying the 1st character, yetwe’re supposed to believe the 2nd character. It’s almost like thefilmmaker’s decided half-way thru that Kilmer’s character had to bedisplayed as the `good’ guy and they turned the movie around to go thatroute. I didn’t buy it and I wished they would have decided on one or theother instead of putting the viewers in such a quandary. The style of themovie and the performances were good, but the story left much to bedesired.Too bad, considering this was one of the best performances and roles forKilmer.

It’s surprising that Val Kilmer’s ego isn’t very low. He starred in thesmall release The Salton Sea, which, with its controversial topics and all,would not get much audience attendance. So for Castle Rock to get somemoney, they would go to desperate measures by plastering Kilmer’s name allover everything. Yet there’s no mention of him at all, which must be hurtingto Kilmer. The studio would rather release a movie starless that go withKilmer’s name.

In possibly one of the worst beginnings in film history, we see lots of drugusers doing drugs. And instantly director D.J. Caruso wants us to think,`Wow, this is powerful. People do bad things.’ It’s basically anything but.It’s only hard to watch. While he considers it to be enlightening, Iconsider it to be idiotic. Then people buy drugs. Then we find outtwo-thirds of the way through that the story has a purpose, and that Kilmerwas undercover with the FBI to investigate drugs, while he was going on aMemento-ish crusade to avenge his wife’s murder.

While movies about drugs are alright, this one is so gritty, has so manyunscrupulous characters that it’s impossible to find one redeeming qualityabout it. It even says that vengeance and drugs are good if it gets you towhere you want to go. And to make matters worse, it’s shot in such a darktone it’s impossible to see anything that’s happening with the throwawaycast, which includes Luiz Guzman, Doug Hutchison, Anthony LaPaglia, PeterSarasgaard, and R. Lee Ermey. Only Vincent D’Onofrio stands out as actuallydoing something memorable as `Pooh-Bear’, the drug dealer without anose.

As I said before, the first part of The Salton Sea is an atrocity. There’snothing coherent going on, and it’s totally worthless. As it moves ontowards an actual plot, it gets more involving, now that Caruso realizesthat he brought the point across that drugs are bad, and goes into a storythat’s partially interesting. The character of Pooh-Bear is quite different.For example, his idea of fun is tying pigeons to an RC car and simulatingthe Kennedy assassination. You don’t get that every day. And you don’talways get good drug movies every day. And this is not a good drugmovie.

My rating: 5/10

Rated R for strong violence, drug use, language and somesexuality.

I found "Salton Sea" to be much more affecting on second viewing. Kilmer’scharacter’s motivations are much more obvious, and all the set-ups anddouble-crosses fall into place. I really cared about "Danny", and wanted himto succeed. Despite the repellent nature of the settings and the characters,a compelling and human story emerges.

A note for all the Vincent D’onofrio freaks out there (I am one): this is amust-see performance. Quirky does not begin to describe hischaracterization, but there is no denying that the man owns every scene heappears in. For my money, he is the most compulsively watchable actorworking in films/TV today, and severely under-rated. See "Salton Sea" forVincent, if nothing else.

Recently I watched DVDs of 2 of the latest films in the Kilmer canon-his portrayal of a man on a mission in The Salton Sea & his portrayalof porno king Johnny 'Wadd' Holmes in Wonderland. Both films attempt tobe modern noir films, & in both films Kilmer plays a character that has2 sides to his persona. In The Salton Sea he portrays a dual characterDanny Parker/Tom Van Allen. The former is a crystal meth dealer & thelatter a jazzman. The film is a stylistic masterpiece that is every bitthe equal of the far more lauded Memento- a similar story about atroubled man searching for himself & the truth to his wife's death.Kilmer sinks into the role of Tom, as an avenging husband whose wifewas brutally killed by 2 gunmen near the Salton Sea. Tom decides tobecome Danny, & work with 2 crooked undercover cops (Doug Hutchison andAnthony LaPaglia) to expose the drug cartel he believes is responsiblefor his wife. Along the way he encounters 1 of the great modern onscreen personifications of evil- a drug dealer named Pooh-Bear (VincentD'Onofrio) who wears a fake nosepiece because his real nose was burntoff by cocaine use. Along with Daniel Day Lewis's Bill the Butcher inGangs Of New York, Pooh-Bear is one of those cartoony villains thatnevertheless seems to be just real enough to lift the whole of thestory beyond standard noir. The real forces Tom contends against in thefilm are almost surreal as the cinematography & Danny's hallucinations.Pooh-Bear's idea of fun is eating brains, staging the JFK assassinationwith pigeons and a mini-car set, & threatening Danny.

Director D.J. Caruso and screenwriter Tony Gayton do a fine job ofcreating a world that Kilmer's dual personae feel right at home with.He seems to die several times, only to wake up back in his hell. Thefilm is shot surreally, with low angles, frames just off-center, &flashbacks & dreams that happen in odd places- even in the barrel of apistol. But what lifts this film to true greatness, like Memento, isKilmer's performance. His blend of fear, weariness & bravado echoesback to his work in The Doors, yet surpasses it because this characteris his total creation, not a recitation of a real figure.

"The Salton Sea" is a confused genrehybrid schizophrenic dark comedy/dramawhich attempts to tell a compelling tale of a man (Kilmer) who lost hisidentity through cataclysmic personal crisis and sunk in a morass of drugculture crank freaks morphing into a narc snitch and an underground deepcover IA mole so deep his only identity is himself which he’s lost but ittrying to regain through revenge. Is that clear?? If not, you’ll get someidea of how muddled this story is. Nonetheless, the film manages somemoodiness and is busy enough that people into "pulp fiction" stylisticsmight want to give this a try. (C)

THE SALTON SEA (2002) ***1/2 Val Kilmer, Vincent D’Onofrio, Deborah KaraUnger, Anthony LaPaglia, Doug Hutchison, Peter Sarsgaard, Adam Goldberg, Luis Guzman, Chandra West , B. D. Wong, Glen Plummer, Danny Trejo, R. LeeErmey, Shirley Knight. Pulpy neo-noir with a blazingly implosive turn byKilmer as a mourning widower/trumpet player cum narcotics informer who findshimself in a nightmarish underworld of crystal methamphetamine junkies anddealers all the while trying to resolve his self-destructive instincts inredeeming the violent death of his wife (West in flashbacks). Kilmerdelivers the goods as a smoldering open wound and D’Onofrio gives amemorable turn as the villainous homicidal dealer Pooh-Bear replete withartificial nose and a hillbilly accent (!) Style over substance gets aneven keel here thanks to the gloomy color drenched production design by TomSouthwell and glaring glints of light by director of photography Amir Mokri. Screenwriter Tony Gayton’s story has elements of `Memento’ by coin
cidencedespite coming within a year of each other making the film’s freshness feelexpired by sell date yet offers some genuine moments of uncertainty in hisanti-hero’s quest for existence in a dangerous world. (Dir: DJCaruso)

The Salton Sea is one of those films that creates its own reality andactually manages to sustain it until the very end. Besides Val Kilmer - infine form, tattooed and tormented - there’s a stand-out performance byVincent D’Onofrio as the tweaked-into-another-timezone Pooh-Bear. Amust-seefor these two performances alone. (And I have to say that any film whichhas Kilmer in nearly every scene is ok with me from the get-go. This isthebest film and the best character he’s done since his career-defining roleofDoc Holliday in Tombstone. If you love Kilmer, I guarantee you willappreciate this movie.)

A strong sense of originality and ambitiousness permeates through firsttime Director D.J. Caruso’s ‘The Salton Sea’. Val Kilmer stars as a widowerwho seeks a violent retribution for his wife’s brutal murder. Concocting anelaborate scheme to infiltrate the criminal underworld, he abrogates hisprevious identity in order to adhere to this mischievous plan.

Caruso fills his frames wisely and has some truly unique shots withinthe film, yet while viewing the film I couldn’t help but think back to anearlier film that was familiar to this area. The ‘style over substance’issue is one I frequent quite often within my opinionated pieces. The HughesBrothers’ ‘From Hell’ is a vivid example of how style takes precedence oversubstance. Just as the former film lacked an embedded quality ofstorytelling, so does ‘The Salton Sea’; yet to a lesser extent. D.J. Carusohas an innate talent for photographing even the most mundane sets with aprofound sense of elegance, and he brought a weak script by Tony Gayton to amediocre level. Gayton who seems top have struck a deal with Castle RockProductions (the film’s company) as he penned both ‘Murder by Numbers’ and‘The Salton Sea’ needs to infuse his future themes with some sense ofpurpose. While the script for ‘Sea’ is more enlightening than his first effort,Gayton owes a debt of gratitude to Caruso who showcases his portfolio oftalent within one film. The main problem with the film is not so much its’content, but rather its’ storytelling. The pacing of the film leaves a lotto be desired and those who give the film a chance will enjoy it, yet itseems to drag itself at times incorporating useless subplots for sheer mockvalue. A solid case in point is the R. Lee Ermey scene in which he makes acameo as a distressed father (Blink and you will miss it), furthermore do wetruly need an explanation on narcotics? While the opening sequence was somewhat comedic, I questioned Caruso’smotivation in showing us the underground world of narcotics. The film opensup with an elegant trumpet filled voice over as Kilmer’s character DannyParker retells his story in Memento-like fashion. Taking a page from theChristopher Nolan School of cinema, the film unravels through subtleflashback sequences that immerse the viewer in some stunning cinematography,but weak on plot. In addition, Kilmer is simply not believable as a middle aged widowerwho somehow seems to befriend a group of ‘tweakers’ (Severe drug users) andeasily becomes just one of the guys. His miscast begins our problems as theviewer is treated to a barrage of flaws all against the backdrop of atalented Director’s first effort with a weak concept. The healthyinoculation of stylish comedic sequences and unexpected humor lend the filman original taste that is a sign of potential within the young filmmaker.

In terms of character development, this trait is a needed improvementfor future films. We are treated to larger than life, muffled, twodimensional characters that cease to elicit our attention. An unrecognizableVincent D’Onofrio plays Pooh Bear, a nose-less villain whose ruthless waysand demeanor intimidate Parker’s scheme while he attempts at eluding twodetectives (Anthony LaPaglia & Doug Hutchison) on the case.

As aforementioned, the film is a classy flick about retribution. Is ita truly great film? No. But what it does exude is that the Director has aknack for the medium and saved a sour film from going awry. One last note,before heading into the theatre, study the poster and attempt to make thecorrelation between the poster and the film. It is pervasive, butinteresting. Here is a clue, study the film’s final moments.

Giancarlo’s Rating: **

SALTON SEA proves again that Val Kilmer is a actor and not what he hasbeen seen as the last couple of years, a star. Ever since the release ofthe dreadful BATMAN FOREVER, Kilmer was a major spotlight, he was the majorobject of desire from most women and a box office draw.Then after such pretty bad movies (ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU and RED PLANET)Kilmer was fading out of the limelight. With SALTON SEA, Kilmer proves tothe viewer that this was the same man who we enjoyed as Doc Holiday inTOMBSTONE, Jim Morrison in THE DOORS, and Chris Knight in REALGENIUS. SALTON SEA has Kilmer as Danny Parker, a most of the time drugged outloser living in the drug culture on Los Angeles. He hangs out with Kujo(Adam Goldberg) and his reliable friend Jimmy the Fin (Peter Sarsgaard). Danny is pushed around by two narcotics officers, Morgan (Doug Hutchison)and Garcetti (Anthony La Paglia), and has his life in danger with thegrotesque Pooh Bear (Vincent D’ Onofrio) who wears a plastic nose afterlosing his nose from doing too much "smack." Danny sees a way of redpemtionwith his female neighbor Colette (Deborah Unger) who is abused by herboyfriend Quincey (Luis Guzman). Danny also has a plan that deals with aherion buyer named Bubba (B.D. Wong) that revolves around the death ofDanny’s wife who was killed at the Salton Sea about a hundred miles east ofLos Angeles. SALTON SEA is more of a character study than a actual plot. The filmis a study of Danny, the decisions he makes in life to which is the rightpath to take which would either help or save his life. It’s also a darklyhumorous look into the life of those who do herion and those who sell it. The images of Pooh Bear are pretty haunting that the next time you hear"Pooh" you will be thinking about the nose-less smack dealer before youthink about the cute cuddly Disney character. But like I said, it’s the acting is what makes this movie strong, andit’s among the best acting that I have seen all year. This is Kilmer’s bestrole that I have seen since HEAT (although he didn’t do much in that film). But Kilmer is just as enjoyable in this as he was Doc in TOMBSTONE. VincentD’ Onofrio seems to have a fun time playing the Pooh Bear who has viciousways of punishing those who steal money from him that include a badger. While the rest of the cast, including Doug Hutchison and Peter Sarsgarrd aredeliver good performances. The other element that helps SALTON SEA stand out is the directingstyle of D.J. Caruso. It’s the most darkest and visually creative filmabout drugs that I have seen since TRAINSPOTTING. Some of the visuals fromthis film stand out, with the beginning of Kilmer sitting in a room on fireplaying the trumpet, to the lay out staged of the renactment of the KennedyAssassnation using pigeons as the Kennedy’s and governor ofTexas. This isn’t a film that will be enjoyed in most cities (note that I amwriting this from L.A. when I live in Phoenix, it’s only showing in L.A.right now). But it’s a movie that will entertain you and hopefully give youa second thought before you see that drug addict sitting in the corner ofthe coffee shop. A thought on how do you think that person got in thatshape in the first place. And that is a rare element coming from a majorHollywood studio. Great show! ***** (out of five)

The Salton Sea is a darkly funny drug/revenge tale that’s as wonderful asitis original. I really enjoyed the hell out of this fil
m. This isn’tMemento, but in a way it is similar. Instead of having a film that dealswith memory loss, this film deals with overcoming drugs, and trying tofinda killer. What’s odd is how funny the film is. Don’t get me wrong,you’llbe shocked, you’ll be moved, but you’re also going to laugh your butt off.Val Kilmer is GREAT!

read comments (0)

The Tuxedo

If you watch this movie expecting another Rumble in the Bronx, Mr NiceGuy,or Super Cop, you will be disappointed. If you expect a Bond-like movie,youwill be disappointed too. And if you expect brilliant dialogue and indepthconversations, sorry to say, you will be disheartened. But if you wantsomegood, family fun, with scenes that will enthrall the whole family, themoviedelievers. The Tuxedo, film starring the ever-so entertaining Jackie Chanand beautiful, seductive Jennifer Love Hewitt, is a bit of Rush Hourintermingled with Bondesque technology plus some of Jackie’s "good’ ole"martial arts action. When I watched this movie, I found the beginning tobeconfusing because I didn’t realize the point of the movie until the moviegot going, which took some time. Kids will enjoy the juvenille humor bits,while adults will yawn and smirk at times. I must say, most of the"humor,"is target at children and not adults. Oncec I learned that the movie wasabout water, I have to say, I thought that this would be a pointlessmovie,which of course it was. But don’t let this get to you, because I wasthorougly entertained throughout the whole thing. Well, lets get to thegood part…..When Love Hewitt first appears on the scene, she is a bit annoying andtoofake sounding as she rambles off her "watered-down" facts. But I guessher role is the be the sexy sidekick of Jackie who can kick some arse, andact womanly at the same time. Adult men will definitely find her presenceinthe movie enjoyable, especially when the two are undercover at parties.Since I’m partial to JLH, a devoted fan I am, I basically watched thismoviefor her. If you are too, the movie will be well worth the $6 dollarsspent.

I won’t divulge too much about the movie, but I’ll say that there aremany humorous and action-packed scenes that involve the tuxedo, which issome government project designed for Jackie’s boss, who is a secret agent.There was something confusing about the movie that I did’t get. Near theend, Love takes the tuxedo from Jackie and acts as though he stole it. Shelater does something unusual with the tuxedo, and that whole premise oftaking it from Jackie was distorted. Maybe you can figure it out when youwatch it. There are a few sweet moments in the movie as well, especiallywhen Love reveals a side of her that many seemingly arrogrant people havewithin. As a fan of hers, I know that its a part of herself, so I foundthatwarming. Well, any of you that go watch the movie, dont expect too much,andjust relax and laugh when you feel like it. With a name like the Tuxedo,youknow it cant be high-class 6 out of 10

Realy one of his best movies ,it is like every movie that he delivers withAction, Funny Type movies but this time whith Dreamwoke prodaction and agood director the movie is realy good and specialy for Jackie Chan Fansthey will Love it !!! don’t miss this one ,,

Okay - if you are familiar with Jackie Chan’s Hollywood work at all,you’llhave a pretty good idea what to expect here. Cheesy effects, hokey jokes,and high action are the Chan trademarks and they’re all present andaccounted for in this film.

I would say that if you’re looking for a good popcorn film, or just somemindless entertainment to amuse yourself — this is the show to see. Fundate film, and a great film for the teen set.

If you’re looking for intrigue, thrills, whodunit or edge of your seatnailbiting - this ain’t it. It’s pure light fun that doesn’t even botherwith a plausible plot.

If you’re looking for something like Rumble in the Bronx (Chan’s best inmyeyes - though I’m no expert) - this ain’t it either.

However - it is a fun way to spend a day - and it’s worthy of a rainyafternoon, especially in the midst of the dry season we seem to be havingat the movies lately.

I give the flick a 6/10 for its sheer will to entertain us. It’s notoriginal, but it is fun. Besides - a shot of Hewitt’s cleavage shouldthrill the teen set immensely.

Sadly, this isn’t Jackie Chan’s best nor even good movie. The pacing andplot seems to fall apart about a fourth of the way into the movie becomingdumb and dumber. What audiences expect from Jackie Chan doesn’t get fullplay here and the best part of the movie is Chan’s famous closing credits.Hewitt gets some great lines and acting parts and saves the movie frombecoming a complete waste. The movie had potential, the number of funnylines are numerous, and the effort laudable, but unfortunately, neitherHewitt nor Chan can save this movie. More of Devlin’s presence, thesuperspy, would have been helpful in a movie such as this but Chan had tosuffer having to somehow carry the whole load of the irony in this movie,better shared with another actor.

it is hard to describe this film without giving away story elements, buttobe safe,the story is about a technological type of tuxedo, which gives manyskillsto whowears it, selecting via a digital watch.

The plot is silly, the story is stupid, yet it will entertain any viewer.Afilm not to betaken seriously, there are enough gags and funny moments to make thisfilmworth viewing;

definitely a rental movie.

7/10

Well, I went into the theaters with the excitement, because there was anewJackie Chan movie. I left the theater somewhat puzzled, because I didn’tseea Jackie Chan movie.

This is not a Jackie Chan movie in the traditional sense. Jackie Chanmoviesare the great ones such as Police Story, First Strike, The Drunken Masterseries and Rumble In The Bronx. The Tuxedo is an American ‘action’ comedythat just so happens to have Chan in it.

All the stunts were done with wires, and it is very apparent. There ismaybe5-10 minutes of fighting and even then stupid American directing ruinsthem.Too much editing and cutting, and the camera is too close, so much of thefighting is lost.

JLH did not belong in the movie; she just doesn’t fit IN the movie. It wasan extremely odd match up. Although she provides the movie’s eye candy, Iwould rather have the good fights and stunts that the typical Jackie Chanmovies are known for.

The story is somewhat weak, there was aweak buildup of what was supposed to be a real evil villain.

I left the theater disappointed because I saw a really bad action movie.Maybe Jackie will go make some Chinese movies again so there can beanothergood Jackie Chan movie. Not this poor substitute.

I can’t stress this fact enough; this is not a Jackie Chan movie. This isanAmerican ‘Action’ Comedy, which happens to star Jackie Chan. Littlefighting, no true stunts, lots of wirework, and a poor story. I recommendjust renting some of his better movies instead.

I thought the movie was pretty good. I didn’t mind the silly plot. JackieChan is a natural for physical comedy, I think. His timing is alwaysperfectand he was fun to watch. But Jennifer Love Hewitt is the reason, I think,that this movie is only fair. She just sleep-walks through the movie.It’sone thing to play a woman trying to be emotionless and another toactuallyBE emotionless. There is no chemistry whatsoever between her and anyotheractor in the movie, much less between her and Chan. I’d like to see asequel, without Hewitt.

This is not really a great Jackie Chan flick. Not the same high impactstunts we are used too . We also didn’t get to see his funny side asmuch.He does however have a pretty good James Brown scene.Although Jennifer Love Hewitt is incedibly gourgeous, she can’t fight herway out of a paper bag. She looked totally out of place and slowed JackieChan down.

Wait for the DVD !

Jackie Chan has reached a new low. I didn’t thought he could do worse thanRush Hour 2, but he sure proved me wrong. This film is amongst the mostlousy I have seen in my entire life!!.

It’s even worse than his old american attempts (The Prospector and BattleCreek Brawl)… Hell it’s even
worse than some of Jet li stupid americanmovies. I simply don’t understand how he could ever do this film.

I’m a big fan, and have seen all his Hong Kong movies (loved them all),butsince he hit America it has just been one crappy film after another. Hehaven’t made a good film since Accidental Spy - Now I’m just lookingforwardto the next chinese production; The Medallion.

Avoid this movie, and most likely the next 1000 american Jackie Chanfilms

PS. Sammo come back and save this guy (I just hope Gordon Chan cananyway)

and regret doing so. Thank God it was only a dollar to rent. The only goodscenes were the outtakes. The whole movie seemed unrehearsed andamatuerish.This was a bad Chan movie. I suppose he’s allowed one bad movie perlifetime. Don’t do it again, Jackie!

read comments (0)

The Truth About Charlie

THE TRUTH ABOUT CHARLIE (2002) * Thandie Newton, Mark Wahlberg, TimRobbins,Ted Levine, Lisa Gay Hamilton, Christine Boisson, Joong-Hoon Park,StephenDillane. Jonathan Demme’s limp mistake to remake the AudreyHepburn/CaryGrant romantic thriller Charade lies mostly in his casting of Newton(easyon the eyes, but her acting is genuinely forced here) and Wahlberg (theobvious `He’s no Cary Grant’ aside he sleepwalks through in a blandlydeveloped antihero too) who can’t ignite enough of a spark to rekindle anold chestnut of internationale intrigue, murder and duplicity. A dullthriller is the worst kind.

Thandie Newton is one of Hollywood’s most underrated actresses, I suppose,because she has not yet found her niche as Jessica Lange did with Francesand as Nicole Kidman recently did with, whatever it is she has come totouch. Thandie shines always and ever. As for the rest, the script was apoor, untalented rehash of what was and is a classic, but then look at howmany times Jonathan Demme’s screenplay needed to be redone. Mark Wahlberggives his most cardboard performance to date. And while the directionprovides Thandie candy throughout, the characters all lack depth and realmotivation. Where the DVD has value is in its flip side with the film,Charade, the untouchable original, and with its unmatched performances byAudrey Hepburn, Cary Grant, Walter Matteau, James Coburn, George Kennedy andNed Glass. The Truth About Charlie is that no one is made tocare.

i rented this movie last night. now i know it’s a remake of an 1963 filmcalled "Charade". (it’s on the other side of the dvd.) "charlie" isalmostan exact replica of "charade". it might’ve been an ok film in ‘63, butNOWAY in the 21st century.

Not much to say other than the original that this was based on, "Charade" is10 times better than this.Very stiff acting. Very disappointing.Thandie Newton is definitely no Audrey Hepburn. The French locales of theoriginal are wasted in this version.

I have not seen Charade but it has to be better than this movie. Rightfromthe start you can see that Demme is trying very hard to use a variety ofcinema tricks like quick cuts and flashing images to create a cool film.But the truth is the story is difficult to follow and does not make a lotofsense. There are a couple of twist but not by way of plot development butrather by simply throwing in tangent ideas. None of the actors reallyseemto excite or capture your interest. The story is full of loose ends andunresolved plot lines. Seems like a lot of emphasis is placed on hipmoviemaking instead of good story telling.

The movie is worth watching from the standpoint of taking in someone’screative work. But that is it. This movie gets lost by trying to carryanincoherent story line wrapped in film tricks.

This bewildering choice for a film re-defines the word "pointless." Ifyouneed to know, this is a movie so utterly unconfident in its own validitythat the DVD actually includes a copy of the original film on which it wasbased on the reverse side. "The Truth About Charlie" is a re-make of theclassic film "Charade," starring Cary Grant, Audrey Hepburn, and WalterMatthau. Our latter-day version features the Cary Grant part played byMarkWahlberg (!) and the Walter Matthau part played by Tim Robbins, who formostof the film, perplexingly enough, does a laughably awful imitation ofMatthau in the part of Carson Dial. Thandie Newton is passable as Mrs.Lambert (the Audrie Hepburn role); that is to say, she makes a betterAudreyHepburn than Mark Wahlberg makes a Cary Grant (go figure).

And then, of course, there are the additional characters — a pair ofFrench detectives and Mr. Lambert’s/Lake’s mother. None of them make anysense or add anything of value to the film. The mother was seeminglyaddedsimply for the final scene of the movie — which was only possiblebecauseof a rare and predictably inexplicable deviation from the original story.

This movie is one of those rare disasters so mind-bogglingly unnecessarythat it makes you really feel for the people who starved to death whilethe$40 million or so it took to produce this movie was being spent to filmit.Hollywood, get a clue: the first two rules of re-makes are 1)never re-makeatruly bad movie and 2)never re-make a classic! I’m deeply, deeply sorry Iwatched it at all

Yes it’s true. This film reeks for all of the reasons cited by critics inIMDb. It’s serious at the start and tries to be light by the end. It triesto be artsy and comes off as miserably nauseating. The actors try to givegood performances, but they ultimately come across as being miscast ormismatched. The result is actually a sad mess, both visually and in itsstorytelling.

Avoid this unless you like pain.

Jonathan Demme’s unfortunate updating of Stanley Donen’s minorcomedy-thriller `Charade’ lacks the only thing the original had going forit, namely the obvious chemistry between leads Audrey Hepburn and CaryGrant. `The Truth About Charlie’ features a self-serious, one-dimensionalThandie Newton and a wooden Mark Wahlberg, showing no interest in eithereach other or in lightening up–Demme has apparently asked them to take theproceedings entirely too seriously and they’re only too happy to oblige.Demme’s obvious intention to deliver lighter fare after the somber `Beloved’and `Philadelphia’ is in principle a good idea and this should have been afun romp. But it’s isn’t and it’s easy to see where Demme goes wrong: theunfortunate casting is perhaps the worst in several years and not even theinternational supporting cast (including Christine Boisson, Ted Levine,Joong-Hoon Park and a smug Tim Robbins) or the French New Wave cameos (AgnesVarda, Charles Aznavour and Anna Karina) can save it. It’s a whimpering boreand a waste–coming from a director of Demme’s stature, it’s also a majordisappointment.

According to the Australian DVD packaging, this is a ‘Jonathna Demmefilm’.

For those of us who are fans of the original Charade, Universal didsomething clever: bundled the remake with the original. That gave methe principal reason to purchase the DVD (or is that DUD) of The Truthabout Charlie.

But this can backfire immensely, as I could compare new andold—concluding that the newer film is one of the worst I’ve seen fromeither Jonathan Demme or Jonathna Demme, the well-known typing error.

I recall Demme saying he would focus on the background elements thatwere missing from Charade, so that we needn’t compare apples withrotten apples. It’s an appalling strategy, as the film loses alltension. Demme fails to build up any drama in this new foreground.

It seemed to have lost logic along the way, too, ruining the fineoriginal script.

What is the deal with Charles’s mother? If Charlie was American, howcome Mom was French and a bag lady in the middle of Paris? If shedidn’t know that Charlie had married, how could she have recognizedRegina?

I can’t comment fairly on the lead actors—my love of the originalCharade would make it too unfair on Thandie Newton, Mark Wahlberg andTim Robbins.

The film has some merits that stand on their own: inventivecinematography, Rachel Portman’s juicy score, the surrealism of puttingCharles Aznavour in to the romance scenes between Newton and Wahlberg.The choice of going to Clignancourt for the market is quite suitable inmodern Paris. The Pablo Ferro titles, including the master’s ownhand-lettering, give the film a unique flavour. It’s not meant to berealistic—so there are the old Citroën DSs and Peugeot 604s as taxicabs(I defy you to find one in central Paris) and, well, Wahlberg’s hat.But the fake sign on the hotel façade shows that not every aspect ofproduction design has been as expert.

These aren’t elements that could be directly compared to
theoriginal’s, but they made an otherwise ghastly film bearable for nearlytwo hours.

But if I am focusing on discrete elements, then it shows how poorly thenew film stands up. The Truth about Charlie is a film that’s less thanthe sum of its parts.

This abysmal effort suggests that the typing error may have beenintentional. I wouldn’t want my name associated with it.

The only thing that was thrilling about this movie was the certainty thatitwouldhave to end at some point. The wobbly camera was used ad nauseum. A dulland pretentious film … the only good thing about it was that it was setinParis.

read comments (0)

Trapped

I am about one hour and 17 minutes into this 2 hour movie and I am so readyfor it to be over. This is nothing more than hackneyed, cliche-ridden TVMovie tired thriller dribble. Kevin Bacon and Charlize Theron, whom I haverespected in other roles, are just tortuous to watch. I think it may not betheir fault; they didnt have much with which to work.

At first I doubted the movie, but after watch it anyway - I found it tobe much more entertaining than I have bargain for. The story is alittle different and more intelligence than others kidnapping movies.

The story start with how kidnapper (Kevin Bacon) actual plans workedwith different victim before moving on to (C. Theron and D. Fanning).There somewhat a little story line to the movie but is concentrate moreon the way kidnapper plan operate and when things when wrong. Theacting is pretty decent especially Kevin Bacon still looks and actsvery evilly. Dakota Fanning is great compare to other actors her age,and C.Theron and C. Love are better than you expect them to be. Theaction and the flaw of the movie are terrific and are able for you towatch it the entire film without feeling uneasy.

This movie is worth a shot since it for once an actual enjoyablekidnapping film. (Since it is not very serious like - Man On Fire andRansom) Rating: 6.5/10

Better than average suspense story with characters that are not in theleast clichéd. Stuart Townsend and Chalize Theron are, as always, bothwonderful, and I never get tired of Kevin Bacon being a bad guy; hedoes it so very wickedly each and every time. I really look forward toseeing Courtney Love, ever since she played Althea Flint in "The Peoplevs. Larry Flynt." Charlize Theron, of course, has proved her mettleover and over in so many movies particularly "Monster," but itsinteresting to re-watch her in earlier films like Astronaut’s Wife, TheDevil’s Advocate, 2 Days in the Valley. She has no fear of getting downand dirty, complete with her mascara smeared, her hair messed up,red-eyed and appearing totally insane if that is what the role demands.That she gets to be with all the wonderful leading men like JohnnyDepp, Keanu Reeves, and Stuart Townsend is not just because of her goodlooks. I really want to see her with Stuart Townsend again in "Head inthe Clouds" By the way, Mr. Townsend, who really should be seen moreoften, is also the perfect Vampire Lestat in Queen of the Damned. TomCruise, move over.

This film is better then i thought it would be the movies about 2 menand a woman who kidnap a little girl and try to get ransom money andthe two parents come up with a plan to save there daughter.The moviestars actors like the great Kevin Bacon,Charlize Theron,CourtneyLove,Stuart Townsend and Dakota Fanning.The movie has great actionscenes in the end when they are driving down the freeway and how thesea plane comes down on to the road and causes a mass car accident.Attimes the film got a little boring but then it gets heaps better andKevin Bacon does a great job acting in this film playing one of the badguys.This film is a must see movie and i recommend it to buy if $12 orunder and over all the movie is good my rating is 6 out of 10.

This is one of my favorite films.

Casting for the most part was pretty good…except for the doctor.

However…the best part in a film that I’ve EVER seen…the mosttruthful and most responsive by natural movement is in Trapped.

This is when Kevin Bacon first approaches Charlize Theron in the livingroom.

She is near a TV and turns around to see this man standing over her.

Her facial expression is so good. So intense…

Thsi had to be a first time take, because it was the best scene thatI’ve ever watched.

Those 3 seconds of film are remarkable.

Wow…if the rest of the film doesn’t live up to your expectations,this certainly will..I can’t describe it.

It’s fear, it anxiety, anger, hostility, worry, hatred, love, and somuch more.

While I enjoy the entire film…this little segment of a mere 1/2minute in whole takes the cake.

Wow!!!

This film starts off not like your average thriller, it completelyconfuses your mind for a few moments with a hand held camera jumpingall around and you lose focus quickly. Kevin Bacon,(Joe Hickey), givesa great performance of a rather sick person who has many hang ups andgets excited about obtaining $250,000 for a fair days work, if that iswhat you call it. Joe meets up with Charlize Theron,(Karen Jennings),who is a doctor’s wife and has a very cute little girl. Joe Hickey getsthe real hots for Karen Jennings, and Karen does not like what she isbeing asked to do in her bedroom. Karen decides to put a knife in herpanties in order to protect her from Joe’s advances on her sexy body.Courtney Love,(Cheryl Hickey)," Man on the Moon",’99, Joe Hickey’s wifetries to put the make on Karen’s husband and things start to go wild.Great photography and a very exciting film to keep you on the edge ofyour seat. Enjoy

Spoilers herein.

Mandoki makes technically fine but unimaginative films. Theron’s face andmanner is similar. Add the two together with a first time screenwriter andyou have something that plods along. But you already knew that dear reader.

When I watch these failures, I look for something interesting and this casegot me wondering about Kevin Bacon. I gather that directors like him becausehe shows up, works his butt off. He isn’t `difficult’ and tries to do justwhat the director wishes. He has been very effective in the past. Forinstance, Stone is an overbearing director with a clear vision of what hewants. Watch how Bacon responds in `JFK.’ But when the director is weak, hehas no ideas - or his ideas don’t mesh with the project. That’s the casehere.

Here’s an example: Bacon is clay for director to use. Courtney Love is theexact opposite; she is a character who can be called upon to use only thatcharacter in a film. The idea behind the movie is the connections betweenpeople at a distance. The 3 Jennings have a sort of telepathy that is intune, and the opposing `family’ (Marvin as surrogate child) has the sametelepathy but it is somewhat out of tune. All the attunements have aphysical analogy at the end on the `road.’ This could be the actingopportunity of a lifetime in the right hands; actors love to project outsidethemselves and they also like to feed each other. But Bacon is withoutdirection, and Love is clueless.

Theron has a prosthetic crooked tooth.

Ted’s Evaluation — 1 of 4: You can find something better to do with thispart of your life.

It starts in a way you’re not used to in these kind of movies. It starts inblack and white or anyway in a grey tone scale. The camera work is fast,nervous and the cutting is quick. You think a little ofDogma.

But it soon gets conventional. And you’ve seen these kidnapping storiesbefore. You’ve seen it many times in fact, but what makes this more thanaverage is the acting from especially Pruitt Taylor Vince and KevinBacon.

Courtney Love is showing a lot of her legs but not any "forbidden" parts,because this is after all very mainstream. She makes a comic book character.It’s a pity, because Love’s got talent.

You know, I am so damned sick of movies of this nature that start out withavery unique plot and apply every single cliche reaction and played outending until whatever ounce of originality it had to begin with is suckeddry. The movie ends up on a video store shelf as just another thriller.You’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all.My first gripe with this movie is that, just like the cookie cutter horrorfilms…DON’T OPEN THAT DOOR…, these ridiculous ‘parents’ spend theentiremovie doing everything in their power to force these kidnappers to killtheir child without success.My second gripe is that the film starts
out with beautiful cinematiceffectsthat mimic the disjointed, confused state of the parent waiting to bereunited with her child…and then it just swoops into standard thrillerfare. Boring.I didn’t like this movie at all. I was bored with the characters…all ofthem. I was bored with the cinematography. They trashed a good plot andmade me waste 2 hours that I could have spent watchingCarnivale.

Yuck.

The storyline is not bad despite a number of holes here and there. Mymain complaint… the flying scene that made no sense. As a pilot I’mgetting tired of movies showing us over and over that, when you turnoff the engine on a plane it falls out of the Sky like a Duck after aheart attack. Please, please… Planes continue to glide rather nicelywithout an engine. Anyone ever see a sailplane?

Our hero "Will" knew he had to turn of the engine when the callcomes… fair enough. So if he knows how to fly the darn plane he musthave known that all he had to do is climb to around 6,000feet and hecould spend almost 10 Minutes on the phone with the Bad guy. Even withpontoons a Cessna hardly looses more than 600ft per minute!

OK, enough bitchin’ for tonight. Enjoy the movie !

read comments (0)

Treasure Planet

Treasure island is one of the greatest adventure books ever written. When iwas a child, this book made me dream of pirates, of treasures, of ships.Well, there is no epic wind of adventure on that boat, and the universecreated is very superficial.

So, you remove the story, you remove the universe, you forgot the music (iheard the french track), there’s only the characters left. Morph, the"thing", is really very funny and saves itself the film from the disaster.Long John Silver is very kind (should he ?), as the doctor is an interestingcharacter. The crew, coming directly from Star Wars (or from the frenchcomic "Valerian"), is a catalog of strange creatures. You may watch thisfilm if you want to laugh, but please forget that it is adapted from"Treasure island", so you should be less disappointed than me.

There is something wrong with Treasure Planet. The drawings and thecomputeranimations are impressive, but the story is confusing and unrealistic. Ifthe story can display a clear line between good and evil, it may be morefunto watch. It seems that Disney is trying to get the movie to the theatreasquick as possible and it doesn’t want to invest more time to develop thecharacters more clearly. With no romance and confusing charactersdevelopment, this movie will not generate big bug for Disney as it hopesfor.

Although I’m single and not a parent, I found this movie to beinappropriatefor children for the following reasons: 1.) Absent father; 2.) Mutantspacepirates destroying the livelihood of the Mother; 3.) Mutant crew Memberkilling the Ship’s First Mate; and 4.) and Doomsday destruction of planettoprotect "treasures" violently stolen from innocent persons. Walt Disneywould be turning his grave if he knew things got things out-of-hand atWaltDisney Studios.

Spoilers herein.

In many ways, this is a typical Disney film:

–They continue their long term plan of making all their main characters`ethnic,’ as a deliberate strategy for world aftermarketsales.

–They continue to moralize: this decade, it focuses on at-risk fatherlesschildren.

–They continue to defile classic stories: details below.

–They continue their mastery of the exploration of sex in archetypes, herein the feline British mistress of the boat. This part fascinates me: Disneyhas a higher concentration of researchers in this area than anywhere elseoutside spooky labs. They chose Emma Thompson’s voice and mannerisms andthey couldn’t have done better: she is a real actress who understands how toexploit this type of sexually-laden role.

But all these transgressions are made up for in the visual presentation.What’s new here is that they have mastered the problems of moving thecamera. It is striking because the camera-eye does things no physical cameracould. This includes highly composited CGI like `Potter’ and `Clones,’ whichhave to match to a physical shot. To a film enthusiast this is somethingspecial and I suspect that the space theme was invented primarily to exploitthese techniques.

See it just for that.

As for how `Treasure Island’ was twisted, recall that the original `badguys’ were Flint’s crew: they actually had `earned’ the treasure and wereonly claiming their own. Trelawney (here Doppler) was an effete, uselessmember of the upper class whose privileged existence was (to Stevenson) anact of piracy.

Jim’s adventure was the conflict between these two types of honor. That,folks is why the classics work. The first act in the book, with Blind Pewand the black spot on a page of the Bible — and the mystery of the chest –was essential to this setup.

Now see what the writers of this have done: instead of a conflict within Jimamong social systems, it is transferred to Long John, who has a simple moraldilemma and makes the `right’ choice. No wonder we are a nation of nitwitswhen the soul of a great book is dissolved into a simple morality play.(Notice the framing device of the kid in the beginning: he doesn’t have toread — the book IS the movie.)

Oh well, apart from the visuals and Emma the catwoman we have something elsethat is a first to my knowledge: the credits group together all the peoplewho created each character. This is an important event, I think, because indifferent ways all these people are the `actor team’ who create eachcharacter. Would like to see something similar for complex actors in `real’films. We might have several of the beings in Julianne Moore’s bodycredited, for example.

Ted’s evaluation: 3 of 4 — Worth watching

I saw "Treasure Planet" today and was very disappointed. The

animation is pretty terrific, and the blend between computer and

traditional animation is seamless, but the movie seems only to

concern itself with outlandish effects, while the characters and

story get only sporadic attention. There is a nice relationship

shown between Jim Hawkins and John Silver, but the other

characters are mainly annoying "types." One exception: the captain

of the ship, who is voiced by Emma Thompson. In her British

accent, she uses her extensive vocabulary as a weapon. Example,

when explaining something to a rather dense character: "Let me

make this as monosyllabic as possible." From an animation

standpoint, this is a technical accomplishment, but not much else.

Wait for video.

Why didn’t more people see this movie? It was incredible! The voiceacting, the comic genius, the story of a teen who just didn’t careabout the world, the music, It was all GREAT! How often do you see adog-like creature and a cat-like creature fall in love? Okay, that waskinda cheesy, but it was funny. I was 13 when I saw this, so Iidentified strongly with Jim Hawkins. The big question here is why doesJohn Rzeznik write his best music for movies? "Iris" and "I’m StillHere" were great. Captain Flint could Scare you, and you liked Silvereven though he was the villain. It was nominated for an Oscar, but lostto "Spirited Away", aka that Japanese flick nobody ever heard of orsaw. It still woulda lost to Ice Age. I bought the only DVD of thismovie at Blockbuster, so yeah, I loved it. 10 out of 10.

OK, I’ll tell you right now, I was not expecting this movie to be goodat all. I watched it reluctantly after my Uncle had gotten it from somemovie club and gave it to us. Me being a teenage guy laughed when hehanded it to me. But my Dad really wanted to watch it, so I humored himby watching it with him. MAN! This movie is just…cool. Personally, Ilove the original Treasure Island. It was so much fun to watch itredone with a futuristic theme to it. This movie truly is foreverybody. I must have watched it at least 10 times…at least.

No one can complain about the story line, because it’s the exact samefamous story line of the original, just set in far off space. Not onlyare there cool gadgets and nifty ways of flying, but great messages tobe had throughout the entire film. There are morals about friendship,love, sacrifice, etc. The voices match the characters perfectly, and inthe end, it leaves you with a great feeling (not to mention the musicis awesome).

I highly recommend this movie to anyone who just wants to smile.There’s action and drama and comedy and some funny looking aliens too.I give the movie a 10/10

I believe this movie is trying to look like Japan Animation. It has beensaid that Disney animators now adore Japanese Master such as HayaoMiyazaki.And I have to admit, "Treasure Planet" creator did a marvelous job toadaptthis 18th century story to "Star Trek"’s century (whatever you name it).Theimage of the ship flying in the sky is spectacular.

But all the spectacular that the movie bring to screen is still no matchforJapan Animation ("Osamu Tezuka’s
Metropolis" and "Princess Mononoke", forexample). And I find the story not exciting either.

I believe that Disney should back to its core competence, which is musicalanimation. I believe that Disney should give the audience another featurelike "The Little Mermaids", "Alladin", and "Pocahontas", rather thanspace-wanna-be movie like "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" and "TreasurePlanet".

I really hadn’t planned on seeing this film, but my son and I decided to seeit instead of going with the girls to see Maid in Manhattan. We were bothdelighted with our choice by the end of the movie. It is visually pleasingand executed in the traditional Disney high standard.

This movie is Disney doing what Disney does best. It is an animated talethat doesn’t twist, distort, change or generally re-write history/realityfor the convenience of selling the movie.

Pocahontas is a perfect example of how Disney hasn’t got a clue how toretell actual history. Bambi is a perfect example of skewed reality. Afterthe scene where the evil hunter and his dogs - illegal for deer hunting -run rampant through the woods shooting indiscriminately shooting ateverything in sight - would never happen - and finally burn the woods down,it is little wonder that a generation of anti-hunters use Bambi Hunter asone of their anthems.

This movie, on the other hand, takes a well known tale is spins it into afantasy outer space adventure. It follows the original closely enough inconcept to be worthy of using the name. It is sort of on the theory of allmovies actually being cowboy movies. Maybe all cowboy movies can also bespace adventures.

In any respect, this is a fine movie that will probably never reach theclassic proportions of many of Disney’s other less worthy tales. That is ashame.

Given the glowing and mostly positive comments I’ve read on this board, Ijust have to ask: are we talking about Treasure Planet (2002), or some otherfilm that had a coherent story? Yes, there were some stunning visuals andinteresting concepts, and yes, as a forum for some talented individualartists to show their chops, this film worked. But only forthat.

Because, frankly, they took the old and dated story of Treasure Island anddid not improve it. Instead, they just took one under-used genre (19thcentury pirates) and replaced it with an ill-conceived one (space pirates). Every character but Jim was an alien or a cyborg, everything in the film wasunfamiliar to us, and a large part of the film was spent in the "look howcool and creative we are" mode. Few films are ever considered great thatget bogged down in their genre as badly as TP has done.

And despite some parents claiming their children were riveted, this justwasn’t the case in the theater in Burbank. Kids were so bored they couldn’tsit still. They would get up and run around, switching seats, and doinganything they could to keep entertained. After a while, the parents justlet them run out of sympathy. And I felt the same way. As a kid at heartand an addict of animation, it’s sad that this film was unable to hold myattention considering its 85 minute length.

There was a reason this film has been floating around Disney studios fornearly 20 years. It was a bad idea! Katzenberg knew it, and even Eisnerknew it, but since Disney had basically run out of any ideas by the late 90s(how many sequels to great films are we going to see already?) they greenlitthis one. Too bad. Some ideas are much better left in the realm offantasy.

If you like the art of animation, see this film. But if you just like goodmovies, you might as well skip it.

read comments (0)

Tuck Everlasting

This movie had a lot to work with. The acting was fine, the sets were nice,and the story had a lot to work with. It is my understanding that this filmwas based on a novel, although I never read it. However, so many elementsadded to the story were done, seemingly because the writers had writtenthemselves into a hole. Take the following two examples:

1) Ben Kinglsey’s character. Although a fine acting job, he was clearlyused uniquely as a vehicle to reveal the truth behind the Tuck family. Hewas originally portrayed as a good opporutunist, but all of a sudden at theclimax, he’s evil.

2) The use of a narrator. The narrator appeared twice during the course ofthe movie, and the second time it introduced a concept never addressedduring the movie. *SPOILER FOLLOWS* After the girl decided not to drink ofthe "fountain of youth", the narrator says that the whole idea was aboutmaking decisions for yourself. In fact, this was the first decision anyoneever really made during the movie. The Tuck family become immortal (*not*eternal, as the movie suggested) due to no decision of their own, the girlfound them through no decision of her own, and discovered their secretthrough no decision of her own. Her only decision was not to drink thewater and to die and be buried and cover up the spring, so she didn’t haveto live with the one son. In retrospect, probably an excellentchoice.

In retrospect, the story had lots of promise, but it was poorly developedand their was no real moral to the story. What can we learn of any sort oftranscendent values from this film? I suggest that there is none, and forthis reason I think very poorly of this film.

Oh dreary, it’s another one of those movies where a young girl isliving at home but her life is some sort of "prison". Blabedy blabedyblah. You’ve seen it all before. It’s not a bad story. There’s aninteresting plot about a family of immortals jealously guarding theirsecret to eternal life from others. For some reason, even though theydon’t share their discovery, they are presented as the good guys.Unfortunately, there are many jabs at Western culture that grow tiring.

She goes to town and before you know it she’s having a game of baseballwhile he mother goes into a shop and, never having played baseballbefore, she hits a home run. Mom is aghast. Blah-blah-blah. Disney hasan urgent message for our girls today - in the age of ‘Girls Gone Wild’- they are trying to tell us about oppressed girls.

The usual view on Victorian age is shown with women being ‘oppressed’by wearing corsets. Another opportunity for Disney to run down ourculture. Probably never occurs to these Hollywood writers that some ofthe fashions of today, like tattooing your skin or getting piercings,are even worse. The movie keeps hammering and hammering, over and over,about the corsets and how Winifred is oppressed. It becomes so tedious.

Meanwhile the poor, downtrodden Tuck family is just so damn happy theyare always out of breath, hugging each other, blabbedy blah.

Then its time for Winifred to go to a school. Of course, oureducational systems back then must also be presented in the mostdespicable light, and Winifred even says, "It’s like a jail!" Then shemeets the poor Tuck family and the rich people are evil thing starts.The Tucks tell Winifred her father is evil because I guess he has alumber business. (Of course, houses are made out of lumber, includingthe Tuck’s house, but that doesn’t matter to the screenwriter.)

Another point they try to make is that immortality is not something youshould want. What?! Who wouldn’t take a drink of immortality if theyhad the chance - and you should! What is wrong with wanting to extendyour life?! The ideas of Hollywood types are idiotic. I swear to God,at the end of the film the message is it is better to be a rottingcorpse in the ground (which they show) rather than live eternally,being able to accomplish everything you wanted. In perfect health. WTF?

How many movies does Disney have to put out that tell us our Westernculture was some kind of horror show? We get it Disney! You have madeyour point repeatedly, as have thousands of other Hollywood movies. Ourancestors, our grandparents, our legacy apparently isn’t worth crap.The democracy they started, the freedoms, the inventions and theenlightenment they developed apparently don’t count for crap. Yes,Disney, you want to revise our history and make it look like the peoplewho came before us were all oppressive tyrants. We get it! But when isenough going to be enough?

This drama is a must not see. The adaptation of the story is superficial andthose among us that seem to think the movie portrays rounded characters justhaven’t seen enough movies and certainly haven’t read this novel. The lengthof the film alone (88 min.) can tell you that it is impossible to look intotheir souls. Jesse is the happy brother who wants to live and falls in lovewith Winnifred (his first love in a 104 years ??) Miles is the angry brotherwho wants to die. His wife ran away from him, with their two childrenbecause she didn’t want to drink from the fountain of youth, because shethinks it’s the devil’s work and thus let their daughter Anna die ofpneumonia at 15. Shouldn’t he be just a little mad at her as well??? Thefather is the wise old man. He must be about a 150 and his sons are 104 andabout a 115. They should be wise old men themselves by now. Or are we tobelieve that as the body doesn’t grow older the mind doesn’t either ? Themother is just the mother, loving and caring and protecting her family whenshe should. The man that hunts the Tucks is a Tuck himself. He’s Miles hisgrandson but all he’s interested in is making money of the spring. No-oneelse seems to care that he’s family as well. Winnifred’s character is theworst of all. She’s a 10 year old trapped in a young woman’s body. The othercharacters I won’t even mention because they are even flatter than the abovementioned main characters from this weak screenplay. It’s a very badadaptation of Natalie Babbit’s wonderful novel. In the book our naiveWinnifred really is 10 years old. That’s why she and Jesse only kiss.JEFFREY LIEBER, the one who is RESPONSIBLE for this bad screenplay, just wasto lazy or lacks the talent to let the actions of Winnifred fit the age hehas given her or was ordered by the studio to give her. This explains whythe young woman in this film takes the challenge of playing some stickballin the beginning of the movie and why at the end of the movie she runs backto daddy instead of following her first true love. All and all thecinematography, the acting and the ending make up for the very very very badscreenplay, but not enough to change my mind about this film. It’s just moreinfantile Hollywood-pulp that murdered a wonderful story. The 1980 Britishadaptation of this children’s novel was a better one……

Tuck Everlasting was one of the best movies I’ve ever seen.It was theperfect mix of romance and drama. It was also sooo sad. Especially whenJesse said "Winnie Foster I will love you til the day I die." It wasalso sad at the end when Jesse visited Winnie’s grave. This is one ofthose rare occasions where the book is as good as the movie. The actingand casting were great as well. THe ones who played Jesse and Mileswere very good looking! I just loved everything about this movie. Itwas so sad though! I actually cried when I watched it. It was a greatplot, storyline, acting, everything! THis was definitely one of thebest movies I’ve ever seen. THere was nothing I would change…exceptWinnie’s not drinking the water!

I have not seen the original Tuck Everlasting nor read the book, but thismovie was bad. It pushed the bounds of tear-jerking sentiment too far,trying to be "Old Yeller" but ended up falling flat on its face, making mecare nothing about any of the characters. It was also bogged down by thehorrible performances of the young Tiger Beat hunk and t
he main girlcharacter (I can’t even be bothered to recall the actors’ names) and fairlynaff performances from William "Lost in Space" Hurt, Sissy Spasek, and theguy who plays the Irish guy in Titanic. The narration was so corny it mademy head hurt, and people who have not read the book spend the first half ofthe movie being totally confused by everything they see, and in the end notcaring at all. The only character I found interesting and well-acted was theunnamed villain, but all by his lonesome he couldn’t pull this movie out ofit’s mushy, candy-coated quagmire. This is definatley one tomiss.

"Tuck Everlasting" was, while not the worst piece of tripe I’ve ever beenforced to experience, certainly right down there. This butchering of adecent children’s book manages to be both dull and stupid, often at the sametime.

It is hard to decide where to start, but obviously the direction is a majorelement. Russell’s gratuitous use of slow motion nearly caused me to vomit,not to mention his freeze-frame flashbacks which seemed nonsensical ratherthan realistic. The entire feel of the film seemed to swing frommind-numbingly boring to mind-numbingly obvious.

The writing was pathetic, with the use of a voice-over which manages neitherto advance the plot nor create atmosphere (rather, it does cause theaudience to roll its collective eyes several times). Plotline was all butnonexistent until the last third or so of the movie, with the writers (anddirector, for that matter) apparently wanting to audience to enjoy thefilm’s admittably wonderful (though quickly tiresome) forestscenery.

I hardly blame the actors for their mostly lackluster performances, giventhe wooden script they had to work with. Poor William Hurt got such a dulland pointless character… the saving grace was Ben Kingsley as thegleefully malicious Man in the Yellow Suit. Of course Alexis Bledel was ascute as always in the lead role. However, their talents were wastedhere.

It seems to me that Disney couldn’t decide who their audience was for thisfilm - whether they wanted to make a charming story about immortality andmagic in the past aimed at the younger demographic, or a deeplyphilosophical movie about the nature of life for the older audiences. In theend they tried to strike a compromise and made neither, as the charm of thestory was completely hidden by the snooze-inducing direction and thephilosophical debate of the book was truncated to two lines.

Unless you’re an Alexis Bledel fan, stay away from "Tuck Everlasting" at allcosts.

This film invites us to consider whether the realization of immortalitymight actually become an onerous curse. It is a "coming of age" story,which is to say that it is aimed at the younger audience, but most adultsare rather naive about such ontological questions as well. Many of theconventionally religious, for example, subscribe to the lugubrious view thatthis life is but a dress rehearsal for the "real" deal, postmortem, afterwhich they will live forever in heavenly bliss. Unfortunately, forevercould be a long time, and even the plucking of harp strings while singinghosannas might become a bit tiresome eventually. Like the analogous desiresto know the future or remember past lives, which mostly distract one fromliving in the present, the passion for immortality requires that we notthink too seriously about the consequences.

This production is satisfied with asking only the most obvious questionsabout immortality, however, and sets up its argument rather amateurishly. Its characters do not become any "wiser" with the passing of time, butremain forever at whatever level of psycho-emotional development they hadachieved before drinking of the waters. That detail makes of the evidence astrawman, easily shot down by begging the question. As anyone over thirtywould say, offered the chance to be sixteen again but without benefittingfrom the lessons learned in between, "No way!" Because along with livinglonger we would also like to get smarter, and no one the wiser would preferto be a teenager forever.

A more serious story might have contemplated the prospects, not ofimmortality, but increased longevity. That is, benefitting from theexperience of time, but not at the cost of eroding physical conditions. Excepting accidents and such, the human body should be able to maintain itsyouth considerably longer than it does. What if we could perpetuate ourbodies at the peak level of development for say a hundred years or more? Think about what that would mean to our notions of family, marriage, andrelationships? Those would be questions for a more penetrating film tocontemplate, not whether anyone seriously desires to live forever. But thisfilm doesn’t address that aspect of the issue. It merely takes the weakestof such questions as a way to dismiss them all.

This was not a bad movie. My problem with it was that the plot was

very very basic. There wasn’t a lot that happened but what did

happen was engaging and interesting. The cinematography for

this movie is excellent as well. The movie follows the book and

only changes a few minor details so it would be more acceptable

to a wide range of moviegoers (think Stuart Little).

This movie was OK, but the plot was just too easy to figure out. I hadn’tread the book, so I wasn’t too sure what the movie was about, but had a cluefrom the title. It doesn’t take long to figure out something is weird aboutthe Tucks, and it is easy to guess. The young girl, Winnie, in this was goodand she may become a popular actress one day. Jonathan Jackson was OK, buthe sure has disappeared from the radar screen. I liked the story, but as Imentioned it is more for TV than a movie theater. And one thing thatbothered me is the romance between Winnie and Jesse was so stereo-typical tothe point it was boring.

FINAL VERDICT: I think young teens would like this, but it isn’t to greatfor adults. So, I can’t really recommend it, but it isn’t a bad movie. It’sDisney and the target audience is the young crowd.

About immortality. Is it all it’s cracked up to be? "We’re just rocks bythestream". That was my favorite quote of the film. I would recommend thisforall ages. Ignore the trailer, it makes it look like a romance film.

8/10

read comments (0)

The New Guy

THE NEW GUY (2002) * DJ Qualls, Eliza Dushku, Zooey Deschanel, EddieGriffin, Jerod Mixon, Parry Shen, Lyle Lovett, Illeana Douglas, (Cameos:Gene Simmons, Tommy Lee, Kool Mo Dee, Henry Rollins, Vanilla Ice) Retreadof `Revenge of the Nerds’ with none of its geeky charm this time focusing onpencil neck Qualls (the only likable thing about this laugh-free ‘comedy’)who creates a new identity after a humiliating stint at his high schoolthanks to cool lessons from prisoner Griffin to win over a sexy cheerleader(hottie Dushku) and the usual gross out hi-jinks ensuing. The only inspiredthing about this mess is the casting of crooner Lovett as Qualls’doppleganger dad (!) (Dir: Ed Decter)

You know you’re in movie hell when not only is the feature desperatelyunfunny but it is also reprehensible to the senses. The New Guy is ascreechy new comedy that features DJ Qualls as a geek outcast that tries tomake a name for himself at school. His one goal in life is to get expelled,and after that his ambition is a little hazy. He does make attempts to get adate with a cheerleader by offering money to have some dinner with him.Already, not only is the movie crudely unfunny but the hero is a creep.

The movie flashes to bits of Eddie Griffin as a prison inmate, and he scaresthe guards and just about everyone else by making stunted whiplash noisesthat are pitched from the soundtrack and provided by sound editors. Get it?Everyone around him is whipped because He’s the man! When Qualls findshimself in prison, Griffin takes him from under his wing and shows him theropes, and there is a gag where Qualls is literally climbing the ropes andGriffin lights it up with a match. This isn’t dope comedy, this is comedy ondope.

For the life of me, it is near impossible to make coherent sense of The NewGuy in the way it cuts back between Qualls’ high school experiences andprison. It’s not clear whether they are flashbacks or if he was literallyincarcerated after every misdemeanor he commits at school. Qualls, in one ofhis hijinks, videotapes the school principal on the toilet, while heexperiences diarrhea and feeds the video onto all the school monitors whileclassmates laugh and sneer. Next shot, we find Qualls in prison with noexplanation. The incompetence of this movie has it constantly cutting back and forth withno resolution to logic of what took place in the scene before. There are badmoments and then worse moments, like when the school librarian breaks thecharacter’s penis. See, he had a stiff… oh, forget it. Besides a fairlyamusing parody of Braveheart and a couple of nice scenes with the appealingEliza Dushku (who is just absolutely beautiful!). Tortured beyond belief,one wants to assault the movie screen in revenge. Lucky for you readers, youcan choose from much better movies out there at the Cineplex to go see nowinstead of this one as long as you don’t get locked out of "Spider-Man" orthe new "Star Wars."

"The New Guy" gets off to a very slow start, abusing us with crass humorincluding a teacher getting videotaped as he relieves himself in thebathroom and the main character (literally) getting his penis broken.Yeah,I know. Don’t ask. The cameos are very amusing, including one by GeneSimmonds as a Reverend preaching abstitence. This is an obvious insidejoke, being that Simmonds banged about 5,000 chicks back in his hayday.There are other hilarious cameos, including one at the end that will haveyou on the floor. Eddie Griffin is delightfully amusing as Luther and saysone of the funniest lines: "Prison is a lot like high school: the sex youwant, you don’t get and the sex you get…you don’t want." Unfortunately,the fine actress Illeana Douglas is wasted in a thankless role.

When the film surpasses the 30-minute mark, it becomes harmless and mildlyentertaining. The soundtrack is one of the best soundtracks I’ve heard inawhile, including the great "In the Air Tonight" by Phil Collins, which somemay remember from "Risky Business" in the Tom Cruise-Rebecca DeMornay lovescene. The minute that song played, I felt like I just received anadrenaline shot, especially after the film’s lame first act. Thecharactersare all cardboard cut-outs and utterly cliched–with the exception ofQualls’s geeky friends, who DON’T belong to the Chess Club and DON’T weargoofy clothing. The minute you see the beautiful head cheerleader, ElizaDushku, going out with the dumb, obnoxious jock–you know exactly howthat’sgonna turn out. But the film’s message is pure. It’s a message that hasbeen expressed in several teen movies, but in "The New Guy" it actuallyplayed off well. That message is not to snub anyone because they may notbeas popular as you and may be much different from you. I couldn’t help butsympathize with Qualls’s character, because I was the underdog in highschool. I was a "blip on the radar screen" as the movie’s character says.And watching him gain popularity, though via stupid reasons, raised myspirits. And I also found it touching when the jocks were picking on themidget and Qualls made them apologize to him. And the last thing thatmakesthis movie somewhat of a guilty pleasure is the many beautiful chicks.I’vesaid before that Eliza Dushku is one of the most beautiful actresses inHollywood, and I stand by my word. In one scene, she marches out thedressing room of a clothing store in all sorts of bikinis and low-cutdresses, modeling them for Qualls. Though I know that would never happen,it’s a great fantasy and I get to see Eliza half-naked! So I ain’tcomplaining. Plus, there’s a lot of gratuitous shots of scantily cladcheerleaders and that chick who plays the town slut is a major babe!

Don’t expect any surprises (minus the cameos). The movie is totallypredictable, but it’s harmless fluff (after the first 30 minutes) thatain’tas torcherous as your average teen flick. It’s a shame that DJ Qualls wentfrom playing the hilarious Kyle on "Road Trip" to the moderately funnyDizzyin this movie, but hopefully his next movie will offer a much better role.One major flaw in this movie is it’s set in Texas (and probably shotsomewhere in California that looks kinda like Texas) and other than LyleLovett and Illeana Douglas, nobody has a Texas accent!

My score: 5 (out of 10)

I had heard a lot of good things about this movie, so I picked up the DVDthe other day. I could only watch about 30 minutes of this movie. Ididn’tfind the humour in it at all, and it was very boring. Scenes like themaincharacter videotaping the principal on the "throne", & the schoolsecretarygrabbing onto the lead character’s erection are just some of the "humour"that’s thrown at you within the first 30 minutes. The humour utilized inmovies nowadays seems to be very "toilet based". It was funny at first insome movies, but now it seems that most of the comedies that have come outlately have all been the same, and that is moronic & crude. What are thebig executives in Hollywood thinking? It seems like they are grasping atstraws to find something funny. I guess the only thing that matters isthatTHEY find movies like "The New Guy" funny. The only good thing about thismovie was Eddie Griffin, but even his usually funny humour was lowered topredictable dribble. I usually like teen comedies, but this one is themostunimpressionable mess that I have seen in a long time!

The best part of this movie is the hottttt Eliza Dushku.The other actors are fair,but hottie Eliza puts the fire into any movie sheis in.The bikini scene alone is worth the rental fee.Eliza Dushku is the hottest actress to never take her clothes off onfilm,although what man wouldn’t want to see this hottie in all her majesticglory!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dizzy Harrison(DJ Qualls) is an unpopular, high school geek going through ahellish senior year.

In an attempt to mak
e a new identity for himself, Dizzy gets himselfexpelled from his high school, and learns the techniques of being cool froma prison inmate(Eddie Griffin)

Dizzy enrolls in a new high school under the alias Gil Harris, he makes newfriends and he soon gains respect from the jocks and geeks alike.

Dizzy then gets noticed by the head cheerleader Danielle(Eliza Dushku) andhelps the school football team gain self-respect to win games.

But things turn bad when Danielle’s angry boyfriend begins investigatinginto Gill/Dizzy’s past to uncover any dirt on him.

Also in the cast is Zooey Deschanel, Lyle Lovett, Horatio Sanz and IlleanaDouglas.

The Script by David Kendall was rather lousy and Ed Decter Directing is rockbottom.

There are cameo’s from Jerry and Charlie O’Connel, Henry Rollins, Tony Hawk,Kool Moe Dee, Jermaine Dupri and Tommy Lee.

Then we get some really over the top cameo’s with Vanilla Ice, Gene Simmonsand David Hasselhoff.

Despite funny performances from DJ Qualls, Eddie Griffin and Eliza DushkuThe New Guy Falls flat.

Most of the jokes are rather lousy, but it does manage to pull out a funnyscene or two.

But most jokes really just fall flat.

The only scene really worth watching is when Eliza Dushku is changing frombikini to bikini or something really tight.

Eliza Dushku is very sexy, but she can’t even save the movie though she doescome close with the scene in the bikini’s.

The New Guy reminds me of a lousy version of Can’t Buy Me Love with PatrickDempsey.

The jokes are few and far between

I give The New Guy 3/10

In order to be popular, a geek gets lessons in cool from EddieGriffin.

Lame and Lamerer.DJ Qualls is a real wiener, and you want this guy to gethis butt kicked.And whats up with Lyle Lovett.

Rating:*1/2 (out of five)

New Guy, The (2002) DJ Qualls, Eliza Dushku, Eddie Griffin, Zooey Deschanel,Jerod Mixon, Parry Shen, Lyle Lovett, Sunny Mabrey, Horatio Sanz, IlleanaDouglas, D: Ed Decter. Not another tried formula: Teen Qualls was a skinnyzero before he spent a year in prison, now he’s an aggressive stud at adifferent high school and becomes part of the `cool’ kids. Will theydiscover his true identity? This one aims for the bonfire where it presentsitself with uncreative writing and an overshare of extremely unfunny penisjokes. Who makes these uninspiring repeats? Running Time: 89 minutes andrated PG-13 for vulgarity, sexual content, and some language. * ½

WEll, I give this movie a 5 out of ten for the film itself, I thought itwasfunny,and just plain fun.the other 5 is because Eliza is in it! therefore it gets a 10 forme!

Eliza makes this film worth seeing!…..(referencing the :bikini:scene)

OK it's pretty obvious that this film is awful. In fact I only watchedit because I mistook it for The New Guy 2003 The first real mistake ofthe film is the casting (I won't comment on Eddie Griffin, his name isenough of a trademark for bad films) -the so-called 'New Guy', DJQuills, is a pretty bad choice under so many aspects. First of all, heis far too old for the part -which is pretty common, but what makes itmuch worse here is that this guy already looks ten years older than heactually is. Then, I have to say that even if I don't usually pay toomuch attention to this, here the lack of a decent script and anythinganyway funny forced me to dwell on the protagonist's ugliness. This guyis far too abominably looking for any part!! How could he ever bebelievable in the role of the charming new guy?! The script doesn'thelp him either. The situations are recycled from whatever z-seriesAmerican comedy, with easy jokes (people recorded while at the toilet)and tired stereotypes (cheerleaders, the jerk boyfriend, everyone inthe high school behaving as a lobotomised mass). And where on earthcould it be funny to see a super-skinny guy dressed as a general on afootball pitch, throwing pseudo-quotes around?? More than that: do wereally believe that that's going to make him popular in a high school??The only actually funny parts were when the protagonist was beingbeaten up. They were trite and predictable, but at least that annoyingskinny guy got what he deserved for a while. I have to admit: I didn'tmanage to watch through the whole film, so I might have missed someeven more awful parts. Sorry about that. But I tried to watch a fewscenes here and there, to see where it was heading (Nowhere).

read comments (0)

The Laramie Project

Having had more than a few friends beaten badly for their sexual preference10 years before Matthew was killed and watching the police and the schoolcover it up, I can see making much of the subject. Kid died horriblybecausehe was an openly gay guy (and rather fey, no less) and, finally, everyonepaid attention. Yeah, the film is preaching to the choir for a lot of us"queers" (me included) but, albeit heavy handed and loaded withwell-meaningstars who want to make a "statement" about their politics, is necessary andsufficient to wake up a few more people to the amount of violence out theretowards others simply because these people are "different" in some way. Nowthat we’ve covered this poor kid’s death, how about a heavy-handed filmabout the horrors going on in the Middle East orchestrated by the USGovernment? (I’d like to see Clea in that one, btw…)

Jesus, the whole actor docu-testimonial thing has got to go! Instead ofmaking a film based simply around the events you get a mock up documentrywith tons of unconvincing and worthless actors, and in my eyes at least itdoes more to mock the townfolk than represent them…real convincing.Aboutthe only thing this gay sympathy film deserves IS sympathy because itsdownright pathetic.

This movie is simply a documentary. In fact, it’s really just a bunch ofinterviews. And interviews with actors portraying the original people thatlived in this town. So, really, it’s just a made-up documentary.

That understood, it was well done. It looked real, the actors did a greatjob. I don’t remember hearing about this true-life incident, so I wasn’tswept up in the emotion, nor was I really interested in theevent.

I would have liked this movie a whole lot more if it was NOT adocumentary,but a re-enactment of the whole incident, from the Shepard boy’s life andhome and at school, to the murder, to the aftermath. THEN, the interviewscould have had some meaning.

I watched it. I sat through the whole thing. But if I came across thisdocumentary, or rather, a REAL documentary with the real people onDiscovery, A&E, or some channel like that, I would change the channel andnot be interested at all.

What a disappointing presentation of a fascinating incident. From theopening bars of Golub’s score, shamelessly ripped off from Philip Glass, tothe improvised-sounding but clearly enacted dialogue, which sounds as if theactors are reading from a transcribed tape recording, the film is a letdown. It’s like some pastiche of The Blair Witch Project, The Thin BlueLine, and something Cassavetes might have thought about and rejected. Thefamiliar faces aren’t that bothersome. Okay, so they volunteered, but allin a good cause. (Let’s live and let live.) "And The Band Played On"proceeded along pretty much the same path. But this one fails. It’s notreally a docudrama of the sort we’ve become used to — a narrative tale withactors playing the parts of real people, with a beginning and an end. It’smore like a series of interviews in which performers try to sound as ifthey’re making the dialogue up as they go along. The reenactment scenes areminimal, less so than in "The Thin Blue Line." At times it’s positivelyembarrassing to watch. Worse, there is a self-congratulatory quality onscreen. The movie makers (or the actors portraying them) have shots ofthemselves looking somber while conducting the interviews. (We makers ofthis movie are on the side of the angels, see?) Errol Morris wouldn’t havelowered his brow to such an extent. Movies like this need to be carefulabout something else too. There is a natural tendency in describing awfulcrimes like this to make the bad guys evil and, even moreso, the victimssaintly. This film mostly manages to avoid the trap of sharpeningdifferences — Shephard had HIV and may have come on to the two straightmurderers — but the movie leans in this dangerous direction nevertheless. It’s difficult for people to come to grips with the fact that minority-groupvictims (like victims in general) deserve our compassion not because theybelong to a minority, but because they are human beings, warts and all. It’s their humanity that makes it wrong to mistreat themso.

This film was one of the most concise, fearless, and movingportrayals of the devastating effects of the Mathew Shepard killingthat I have yet seen. Perhaps the film’s most striking attribute is theoriginality with which its director chooses to tell the real life story.

This being his choice to use Hollywood actors to re-createinterviews gathered in Laramie after Mathew’s murder. Throughthe vast array of differing points of view, a complete picture issuccessfully painted which I believe not only gay and lesbianpeople, but people from every walk of life can connectto.

I thought this movie was great. I give it 10 out of 10 stars. I lovedeverything about it, actors, acting, script, transcripts, production,photography and directing. The only people I hate are the ones who madenasty comments about Matthew, and talked a bunch of bullshit about himsaying that he deserved it and was asking for it. That is all totallywrong. I especially hate that Fred Phelps, and his little group ofpeople. I also hate most of all the two perpetrators, Aaron McKinneyand Russell Henderson. None of the negative talk about Matthew, wastrue at all. I think that both the perpetrators should have been giventhe death penalty. They may have life in prison without the possibilityof parole, but that still was not enough at all. Remember the GoldenRule: "Do Unto Others As You’ed Have Done To You. Kudos to the cast,crew, and filmmakers! Two Thumbs Way Up!

"…And the last thing that he saw on this Earth was the sparklinglights of Laramie, Wyoming."

Characters are frequently speaking in poetics similar to that in "TheLaramie Project," a film that if it weren't for its grim subjectmatter, could probably register somewhere as a darkly hopeful poem thatwould have been authored by none other than Edgar Allan Poe himself.

Laramie, Wyoming was just a small dot on the U.S. Plains. It restscomfortably on plentiful farmland and everybody knows everybody andthere isn't really a need to lock your door at night. But this smalltown in Wyoming became the center of a worldwide media frenzy for onecold, dark, chilling winter in October 1998 when 22-year-old Universityof Wyoming student Matthew Shepard was brutally beaten and left to dietied to a fence in an open field.

Laramie's citizens are quick to denounce the crime, and emphasize that,"they are not a town of hate." Matthew was beaten, as we later findout, by two local kids, because he was a homosexual. The townsfolk wereall hoping these were some out-of-town people but the fact theperpetrators are locals makes it even more heinous.

I guess I should say I vaguely remember the case. I'm 20 now; I was 13and in junior high school in 1998 when this story broke. For severalmonths, all that was on the news was Matthew Shepard, Matthew Shepard -the gay college student beaten and left to die by fellow townspeople,who were also kids themselves. Matthew, we're told, wasn't born awinner; he was scrawny, wore braces until his death, short (5'2"), buthe died a hero, at least in the eyes of his father Dennis (TerryKinney).

I didn't pay much attention to the story, but looking back now, with"The Laramie Project" still fresh in my mind, I now wish I had followedit more closely. This film, directed by Venezuelan-born Moises Kaufman(and based on his own play), which is the result of a collection ofover 200 interviews by his fellow (gay & lesbian) New York theaterworkers with the citizens of Laramie, Wyoming, sticks with you longafter it's finished, as person after person expresses their thoughts,feelings, and utter outrage that something as horrific as thi
s crimecould happen in America. Only IN America, could something like thishappen. We are supposed to be in a country where people can livewithout fear of being harassed for their creed, gender, race, or sexualorientation.

Referring to the film, it makes you rethink American values and wonder:Gosh, is this the degree at which people in this country hate? As astraight African-American male, it frightens me. It utterly, utterlyfrightens me at how often hate is preached in this country, and peopleswallow it up like it's the Gospels; it's not. Also, as an agnostic,it's not my duty to say whether or not I approve of the lifestylemyself, but I don't let that cloud my judgment because gays are alsopeople, and we aren't perfect. But still, it's disturbing to see theamount of hate and animosity that was a result of Matthew's ordeal -"GAYS BURN IN HELL," "THANK GOD FOR AIDS" - from an evangelicalChristian preacher, no less! (It makes me wonder if he really believeshis own garbage.)

By the time the film opens, the crime has already occurred, and the twoyoung men responsible - Aaron McKinney (Mark Webber) and RussellHenderson (Garret Neergaard) - have already been brought in and areawaiting trial, as the young (but never seen) Matthew "Matt" Shepard isdying inside a hospital with his parents at his bedside, and a bravedoctor (Dylan Baker) keeps the media and nation alert on his condition.

"Matt," as he was often called by those closest to him, is described asa kind and down-to-earth fellow who didn't hold a grudge againstanybody, gay or straight. Christina Ricci is Romaine Patterson, alesbian who knew him well and is certain Matt's beating was no robberybut a hate crime. Two law enforcement people (Clancy Brown and AmyMadigan) involved in the investigation find their lives changeddrastically as a result of Matthew: Brown's character undergoes aradical shift in his personal views on the gay community and Madigannarrowly contracts HIV from handling Matt.

The story is told passionately well in many personal and candidinterviews with townsfolk. There are many actors here, some familiar,some not, but each serves as everyone else's support, since there areno clear-cut stars. Other familiars include Laura Linney as a sheriff'swife, Steve Buscemi as a philosophical mechanic, Janeane Garofalo as alesbian school teacher, Joshua Jackson as a bartender, and JeremyDavies as a theater student who gets the lead in "Angels in America."

By the end of it all, the cameras pack up and leave, and a shatteredtown attempts to recover from a senseless spectacle of violence. Theyhave to live with it now, while the rest of America gets to continuescot-free. We're told, that no anti-hate crime legislation was passedas a result of Matthew's beating, neither at a federal level or statelevel. With this in mind, the liberal ideology that things will getbetter in time no longer holds much water. The message is clear: theMatthew Shepard murder focused worldwide attention on hate, but why hasso little been done to curb the violence? (*Shakes his head*) Only inAmerica…

9/10

When i first saw this movie i was filled with many different feelings,it was an truthful, accurate story about a young man who should nothave had to die because of who he was. It shows the ignorance there isin people, the fear some harbor and absolute evil there is in some.This young man, a sweet small, man someone who was someones child waskilled brutally because he was gay. Because he chose to be with men.Its a story from people who knew him, of other gay people who live withthe fear of being harmed for being who they are. Its a story of howthings are in this day and age. Its sad, horrible and tragic that thisyoung mans family had to lose him because there are such narrow mindedhomophobic people out there. It shows up the different types of hatecrime and racist there is out there. Its a touching, story one thatmakes you think, one that makes you feel and one that makes you wishyou could change things. I would recommend this movie to any one whowants to see something meaningful, something with a touch of truth,something with a lot to say. Its a great movie with a tragic losswithin it.

It is incredible to me that someone would even THINK about doing a mockdocumentary on a SERIOUS subject with an intent to arouse our emotions.Drama requires talent in crafting dialogue, scenery and mood to conveya message: Be it clarity or ambiguity. Documentary requires skills inpackaging other's points of view: Be it to underscore the maker'smessage or that of the speakers. What the makers of TLP have done is toavoid the work needed in drama and documentary by canning bluntmessages and delivering them without the need of acting, directing,camera work, etc. The result is cheap and insincere.

I wouldn't mind learning about this tragic incident from a realdocumentary where even if the producers' point of view was biased Icould hear the actual words and see the expressions of theinterviewees. Conversely, I could handle a fictional account where Imight adopt and/or appreciate another's perception of the events andemotions involved.

But to impose a mandated message by pulling our outrage, pity, angerand tragedy stings like TLP is shameful.

This wasn’t a movie, it was a Hollywood cocktail party. The script had allthe markings of a last minute project scraped together by a high schooldrama student. The casting, as many others have noted, was a majorletdown.Sure many of these actors are well-known, but that doesn’t mean they wereright for the roles (or that they’re any good to begin with).

Most of these actors turned in awful performances, the worst of which wasJoshua Jackson. The script would seem to indicate he was playing abartender in Laramie, but the character he ended up playing was that of arich Hollywood liberal. It seemed like the film was trying to fit theactorto the role, instead of finding the best actor to carry out the role.

The script was poorly written and never seemed to be going anywhere. Thescene where the doctor breaking down at the press conference wasoverwritten. The worst scene was when the Arab or Indian student (sorry, Ionly watched it once, I can’t remember every detail) took issue with thecontention that many other citizens were making that brutal murder isn’twhat the people of Laramie were about, implying that most of the them wereeither murderers or condoned murder. I read the news daily and can’trecallreading about many murders in Laramie. Portraying the people of Laramiethat way was insult to their town.

By the end of the film, which couldn’t have come too soon, the only pointthat the film had made is to point out that murder is a bad thing. Hardlyatough sell.

read comments (0)