S
SAVING GRACE (****)- a very good movie set in a beautiful country where everyone speaks with a funny accent. I think mabye it's England, because at one point they go to London. Anyway, it's about this gardener who's husband dies, leaving her with huge debts to pay off. She is seemingly out of luck, until her hired hand intorduces her to the zany world of marijuana trafficking. It's actually really funny, and the acting is all great (especially the woman who palys Grace).
SAVING PRIVATE RYAN(****1/2)- this movie was really cool. It must have cost a bazillion dollars to make, but it was worth it. Rent it, if you get the chance.
SCOOBY DOO (***)-apparently, someone in Hollywood decided one day that it would be a good idea to make a bunch of old cartoons into live action movies. Over the past few years we've seen a plethora of our favorite 2D characters spring to life on the big screen, from the reasonably good Josie and the Pussycats to the god awful Flintstones. The newest addition to the 'toon-movie party is Scooby Doo. Now, before I get too far into this, I must say that I was never a big fan of the television show. I don't think I've ever even watched an entire episode, truth be told. Luckily, this did not hamper my understanding of the film; the characters are all painted with such broad strokes (there's "the smart one" and "the arrogant one" and "the ditzy one" etc.) that you pretty much pick up on what's going on within the first few minutes, allowing the movie to segue quickly into the actual plot. Ah, yes, the plot... let's just say that it's very evident that this movie was based on a thirty minute cartoon series. Before we know it, we are following "Mystery Inc." (a group of young detectives who, if you met them, you would not think would be able to solve a mystery if their lives depended on it) to the aptly-named "Spooky Island", a horror-themed amusment park popular with college students. Almost as soon as they've arrived, though, the Mystery Inc. gang notices some strange behavior among the students who are leaving the island, and the game is afoot. What, or who, is causing the students to act in such a bizarre manner? Is it the creepy voodoo man on the beach? Is it the scary bald guy with the tattoos? Or perhaps it's even the manager of the park itself (played by the guy who everyone knows as "Mr. Bean")! You'll have to watch the movie to find out, kids! And a kids movie it is indeed, as it should be. The theater I was in when I saw Scooby Doo was filled with kids, all of whom seemed to be enjoying themselves immensley. They laughed at the funny parts, and yelled at the exciting parts. One kid even burst into applause when it turned out there was a midget in the movie. Will parents enjoy it too, though? Maybe. Some subtle jokes are clearly aimed at the adults who will inevitibly be in the crowd (when the hippie-ish Shaggy meets a girl named Mary Jane he says, "That's, like, my favorite name!") and the movie has enough charm to make it bearable all the way through. If the charm isn't enough, then there's also an inexplicable luchador (you know... one of those Mexican wrestlers with the funny masks) that shows up part way through to keep even the most cynical of viewers entertained. Overall, Scooby Doo is no classic, but it's enjoyable enough as a matinee to be worth the price of admission. Bring the kids.SKINNYNOTE: Matthew Lillard, who plays Shaggy, should win an Oscar for his performance in this film. I'm not even kidding.
THE SCORPION KING (**)- don't be thrown by my rating: if you want to just go to the movies and have a good time with your friends, there is no better film to see than "The Scorpion King". It's one of those movies that is so incredibly bad that it's actually hilarious. Take, for example, this simple fact: the main character is played by professional wrestler "The Rock". If that dosen't scream "wacky" I don't know what does. The movie is basically a big video game, stringing together endless action sequences with a plot thinner than most supermodels. Throw into the mix about a thousand scantily clad women, more cliches than you can shake a stick at, and a camel which the Rock refers to as "my ride", and you've got "The Scorpion King" in all it's awful goodness. Although it's billed as a "prequel" to the two recent "Mummy" movies which starred Brendan Fraiser, "The Scorpion King" really has no relation to anything, and dosen't even explain how the Rock becomes the giant scorpion-monster seen at the end of "The Mummy Returns". I'm assuming that means that a sequel is in the works. I can't wait.
SECRETARY (****1/2)- Secretary is about two people who cannot express themselves with words, and so must express themselves physically. It is a love story about unconventional love, about how sometimes what we think is so wrong can be so right. It’s a movie unlike any I have seen in a long time, smart and funny and entirely sure of itself.Lee Holloway (Maggie Gyllenhaal) is a woman who cuts herself when she is sad or confused. As the movie opens, she has just been released from a psychiatric institution, and is eager to find a job so that she can start a new life. After taking a few typing classes she finds herself working as a secretary for E. Edward Grey (James Spader) a lawyer who, in some ways, seems just as strange as she is. Sexual tension builds between the two, and soon Lee and Mr. Grey are engaged in a bizarre S&M relationship. Can this really be love, or is it merely a perversion? What can and cannot be the basis of a healthy relationship? Is what society views as acceptable really what’s right for everyone?
Secretary explores these questions and offers us answers. It is a movie that revolves around a taboo subject, but does not allow itself to become about a taboo subject. If it did, it would not be nearly as good as it is (although it might draw a larger audience). Gyllenhaal is wonderful as Lee, sowing us in understated ways both the cheery face her character presents to the world and the darkness that lies deep beneath the surface. The movie never exactly makes it clear why she does what she does because even she doesn’t know. Spader is also excellent, giving us a twisted character who behaves the way he does because it is his nature, not because he wants to. There is a brief moment in the film in which we see a three sentence letter that Mr. Grey has written to Lee. It is shocking because it so clearly states the inner turmoil that he has been guarding so steadfastly, finally brings to the surface what we suspect had been lurking beneath all along (and, of course, you’ll have to go watch the movie yourself to see what the letter says).
In an age when most romantic comedies seem to be Xeroxes of one another, Secretary is a refreshing slap in the face (add your own joke about other places it “slaps” here). It is a movie with a brain, but more than that it is a movie with a heart. Check it out.
SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE (***1/2)-I feel bad for not liking this movie more. I mean, it's funny, and creepy, and most of the acting is good, but... I don't know. I guess I just wasn't in the mood for watching it or something. Anyway, it's all about the making of the classic silent vampire movie, "Nosfaratu". John Malkovitch plays the director of the film and Willem Dafoe plays the vampire (extremley convincingly, although much of it may have had to do with his coustume and makeup. But still... he was really good). The stand up comic Eddie Izzard plays one of the actors in "Nosfaratu". One of the things that bugged me about the movie, though, was that every time some cool or interesting information was being disclosed, the characters were either drunk or in a drug-induced stupor. For example, when John Malkovitch finally gets around to telling everyone how he happened to find a real vampire to be in his movie, he is out of his mind so a lot of what he's saying dosen't make sense. It's like, "I read this book, and then I went to this castle, and then... ohh..". It was kind of frustrating, since that's the type of thing it would be cool to hear about. Another thing that bugged be were the opening credits. They done in this really boring way, and just went on and on and on... it was madness. Anyway, this movie is probably much better than I'm making it out to be. I'd sugges it, if for nothing else, then to see Willem Dafoe play the vampire. He's really good at it. It's especially neat if you've seen some other films of his (like "Platoon") where he's completley different. Just excentuates his good-actingness. Go seethis movie, but be warned- it's not a flat out comedy. A lot of it is pretty creepy. In fact, I'm not even sure what section of the video store it will be put in once it comes out on casett. It's a comedy and a horror. A horomedy. A comoorer. I don't know.
SHAFT- THE NEW ONE (**)- man, what a dissappointment. I always had such repect for Samuel L. Jackson. I mean, the whole "Phantom Mence" thing was forgivable, but now this... he's walking on thin ice. the new Shaft is flat out terrible. The only reason I gave it two stars is because most of the acting is not too bad. Vanessa Williams is one of the best people in the film, and the guy who plays the leader of the Hispanic gang is pretty good too. In fact, he was more likeable than Shaft. But even this good acting can not save this terribly written movie. Avoid it like the plague.
SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE (****1/2)- all right, admittedly, I was really tired when I watched this movie, so if I get things wrong about it, don't get mad. It's basically about a young William Shakespeare (played by Joe Finnes, or maybe Ralph. I can't tell them apart) who is suffering from a case of writer's block. He eventually falls in love with a beautiful, and rich woman named Viola (played by Gwen Paltrow) and amazingly, he can write again. But, of course, she is engaged to a terrible guy she dosen't love, and thus conflict is created. The sets, writing, costumes, and acting are all quite notable. Also, much of the movie is pretty funny, if you know your Shakespeare. There are numerous refrences to his other plays (which, of course, have not yet been written at the time when the movie takes place). The end is a bit confusing, but perhaps that's just because by that time I was pretty much just listening with my eyes closed. I think a ship sinks or something. This movie won about eighty five Oscars, and was renowned across the land as "The Best Picture of the Year". Or so it says on the box.
SHRECK (***)- yeah, yeah, yeah... I went to see this movie. I know, I know... shut up. It's a computer animated, G-rated, family film about an ogre named Shreck (with the Scottish voice of Mike Meyers) and a donkey (voice of Eddie Murphy) who go on a "quest" to find a Princess (voice of Cameron Diaz). It's a children's film, so everything is pretty predictable and so-so. Except the animation, which is really, really good. I'm not sure what else I can really say about this movie. There are a lot (a LOT) of sexual innuendos, which I guess were thrown in for the adults in the crowd, but are so obvious I think even a three year old would understand what was going on. Oh well. It's probably a good kids movie, and the animation is really "cutting edge" (or whatever the term is), so maybe you want to check it out. It's pretty short, too. Yeah. Hmm... wait! What was that? Did I hear someone say... hoy YAAAAAAY!!!
SIGNS (***1/2)- here is an interesting premise for a film: What if you took the old sci-fi cliché of an alien invasion and pared it down so that, essentially, it was just about a single family? What if the alien invasion wasn’t even the focus of the film, and was instead a tool to be used to talk about bigger issues? Would audiences buy it?Well, that’s exactly what director M. Night Shyalaman set out to discover with Signs, apparently, and he came back with some mixed results. Though it’s neat to see him try to keep the audience interested in just a single family while aliens may or may not be attacking the globe, it’s also a bit dissatisfying. We as audience members (and by “we” I mean “me”) are simply too curious. When you set it up so that there could be a worldwide invasion of aliens from outer space, well… that’s a big matzo ball. And to have us only be able to see it from the point of view of a farmer and his two kids in rural Pennsylvania makes us a bit frustrated. What is going on out there? When will we get to know more about the big story?
Of course, one could argue, this is exactly the point of the film. This is exactly what Shyalaman wants: to pique our interest with something big and exciting so that he can then slip in a discussion about faith, and the loss of faith. This discussion is brought about primarily in the form of one Mr. Mel Gibson, who plays a priest who left the church after his wife was killed in a freak car accident. Mel is good (his performance here rivals his expert one opposite Helen Hunt in the classic What Women Want… cough cough), showing us both the strength we want in a leading man and the pain he is suffering from the loss of his wife. He also has two Hallmark-greeting-card-adorable kids played by a little girl whose name I am forgetting and Rory Caulkin, brother of the now infamous MacCaully Caulkin. Other than leaving us frustrated by not giving us enough information about the aliens, my other big complaint with Signs is that they missed out on a huge joke opportunity: how perfect would it be to see a surprised Rory Caulkin look out at the crop circle in his corn field and do the both-hands-on-the-face “Aaaaugh!” a’la Home Alone? I mean, come on…
In all, Signs comes across as a noble attempt that fell short of expectations. It’s fun to see Shyalaman try to mess with the old alien cliches, but in the end it’s just not something we really want to watch. There’s a reason so many alien movies focus on the global story: because that’s what we want to see. And by “we”, of course, I mean “me”.
SKINNYNOTE: My favorite part in the movie? The seemingly inexplicable scene between Joaquin Phoenix and the Army general. Not only is it completely unrelated to the rest of the movie, but that guy who plays the general is the man! And I do not say that lightly. He should win an Academy Award.
THE SIXTH DAY (****)-what a pleasent surprise. I thought this would be a brainless action flick with poor acting, but I was only half-right. Or maybe half-wrong. Or maybe 1/3 right... never mind. Anyway, "The Sixth Day" takes place in the future (but not the dorky future, like in The Fifth Element. This future is pretty cool) and is all about what might happen if humans clone eachother. I won't get into the plot, which is kind of confusing, but makes sense in the end. Instead, I will just say that this movie turned out to be a lot more thoughful that I anticipated it would be. It really looks at the different sides of what could happen with human cloning, and portrays the situation realistically (I mean, as realistically can be expected from a movie starring Arnold Shwartzenewhapshireagr which involves lazer guns and remote-controlled helicopters). I highly suggest it. The only complaint I have is with the "Sim Pal" doll... she gave me nightmares.
SMILING FISH AND GOAT ON FIRE (***)- this might be the first movie I've ever seen that involves absolutely no conflict. Well, that's not entirely true... there is a conflict, but it comes near the end of the film and it is resolved almost as quickly as it has begun. Here's the story: there are two brothers, nicknamed "Smiling Fish" and (you guessed it) "Goat on Fire". Aside from providing the title of the film, these names are hardly ever mentioned in the movie. The brothers live together in the house they grew up in, in Los Angeles, and are more like best friends than they are family. As the story opens, the two have just gotten into arguments with their girlfriends, and find themselves (sort of) single. Never fear, though, because shortly afterwards they each meet new women, and fall in love. That's pretty much it. There is a subplot with an old, funny black man who "Goat on Fire" has to take to work each day. The conflict I mentioned... it involves an old girlfriend coming back and causing trouble. That's about it. Despite not really being about anything, however, the movie is still enjoyable because all of its characters are thoroughly likeable. It might also be mentioned that this is an independent movie, made by (you guessed it) two brothers who are pretty much just like the guys in the movie. In fact, if you listen to the commentary on the DVD, it turns out that the script for this movie was written more as a diary than as something to be made into a film. This makes sense. Real life doesn't, in general, have much palpable conflict either (at least not my life).Other than the likeable characters, there were three things I enjoyed about this movie; the acting, the last scene of the movie, and the fact that these two brothers from nowhere actually had the initiative and desire to even make it. There are elements here that suggest that, given time and perhaps more money, these two could become truly great filmmakers. Just work on the script.
SNATCH (****1/2)- think of the movie "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels". You probably haven't seen it, but it you have, think of it. Now add Brad Pitt, Benicio Del Toro, and more humor. You have just thought of "Snatch". This is a movie about... well, it's about a lot of things. The plot is far to complicated and confusing to explain, but I can tell you that it's set in the British underworld, and involves a diamond. It also involves an uninteligible boxer, a man who feeds his enemies to pigs, a gambler with four fingers, a Russian weapons dealer, a man who has been shot six times yet still lives, three bumbling would-be criminals, a dog that squeaks when it barks, and a group of gypsies. Sound crazy? Well, it is pretty crazy, but it's also pretty good. It is what I believe is called a "dark comedy". "Black humor". Something like that. What I mean is that a lot of what's funny about it is the terrible things that happen to people. There's quite a bit of violence in this movie, but none of it is too graphic. It's humorous violence. Also notable about this film is the weird, but cool, cinematography. It's directed by Guy Richie (the current husband of Madonna) who, if I'm not mistaken, also directs music videos. This is quite evident in "Snatch", but in my opinion, that's a good thing. Hmm... what else? Oh, yeah, there are practically no women in this film. I didn't really notice this when I was watching it, but thinking about it later, it occured to me that there are only about three or four women who have any lines at all, and most are very small parts. I don't know why this is. I just thought it was interesting. Maybe there aren't many girls in England. Maybe they died of the plague or something. Or maybe it was the bad food. This is the kind of movie which, when watching it, one feels almost like they're reading a book. I would definatley suggest this movie, although I must say that it's probably not for everyone. Not the type of thing you'd take your mother to see on her birthday, for example.
SNOW DOGS (**)-about half way through "Snow Dogs" it becomes painfully obvious that one of the major climaxes of the movie will involve Cuba Gooding Jr. biting a dog on the ear. This should tell you pretty much all you need to know about the film. No? Well then, take a look at some sample dialogue:
CUBA GOODING JR: Something must be wrong with your head!
GRUFF FATHER: No, something must be wrong with your head!
CUBA GOODING JR: No, something must be wrong with your head!
(Repeat many times)
Clearly, this is a film meant for small children, but, honestly, I can't imagine anyone, no matter how young, truly enjoying it. It is a comedy, but there are no funny parts. Actually, that's not true. There are two jokes which aren't that bad. One of them involves Cuba's mother saying that he used to want to be "The Six Billion Dollar Man" and running in slow motion, and the other involves people pouring Gatorade on a dog sled racer but, since it is so cold, the Gatorade comes out it a solid block of ice and hits the guy on the head. He makes a funny face. Ha ha. Yes, my friends, these are the highlights of the film. Academy Award nominee Cuba Gooding Jr. spends most of the film falling down, being dragged through the snow, being bitten by dogs, and screaming. How far he has fallen since the days of "Jerry Maguire". Sigh.
SPACE COWBOYS (***1/2)- old men in space. That is the basic premise of this movie which stars Tommy Lee Jones, Clint Eastwoord, Donald Sutherland and James Garner. Now, I don't want to give too much away here, but dosen't it seem like every time you get a team of astronauts and a nuclear bomb in space, one of the astronauts always has to stay with the bomb and die heroically? I mean, it happened in "Armageddon", it happened in "Deep Impact" and now... well, like I said, I don't want to give too much away (although I probably already have). Overall, this is not a bad movie. It's pretty funny in some points, and somewhat (but not very) exciting in others. See it with old people. They seem to appreciate it more.
SPIDER-MAN (***1/2)- it is rare that a comic book is transferred in to an enjoyable movie without losing its "comic book" feel. Only two movies in recent memory, "Dick Tracy" and "Unbreakable" have been able to bring, esentially, a comic book to life withous seeming too hokey. Well, add "Spider-Man" to that list. The beloved nerd turned superhero has come to the big screen in a blaze of red and blue success. Sure, the story might not be much, and the acting is... well, it's about as good as it can get when you're asked to portray a two-dimensional character three-dimensionally... but who cares? It's a huge, colorful, fun-filled movie that delivers just what we need in a summer blockbuster: action, adventure, romance, and a little humor. If you didn't know already (and that would be difficult) the basic story is as follows: a geeky high school senior named Peter Parker takes a field trip with his class to a high-tech laborotory and is bitten by a radioactive spider. The next thing he knows, he's developed the incredible ability to jump great distances, run at high speeds, cling to walls, and, of course, shoot webs from his wrists. He also apparently has the ability to rip off "The Matrix", which he does several times throughout the film, but, hey, what action hero dosen't have that ability these days? There's a love story between Parker and his next door neighbor, Mary Jane (which, I'm guessing, is a clue to how the creators of Spider-Man came up with such a wacky idea for their superhero), as well as an insane villian, called the Green Goblin, to do battle with. The Green Goblin is played disturbingly well by William Defau, who spends much of his time on screen conversing with the voices in his head. The highlights of the movie, for me anyway, were the wrestling match with a character named "Bonesaw" (look in the crowd at the clever signs people are holding up. One, I swear, simply says, "Terror") and the inteactions Peter Parker has with the newspaper editor (this character is so funny, it's worth the price of admission just to watch him. Overall, it's not a movie with any sort of deep meaning or profound insight into human nature, but that's fine. That's not what you go see "Spider-Man" for anyway. You see it for fun.
STARSHIP TROOPERS(***)- I love this movie! It's so funny! It has to be one of the worst movies ever made! A few of the highlighs are "Monty Python"-ish violence, random nude scenes, and incredibly bad acting. I think they did it this way on purpose... at least, I hope they did.
STAR WARS: THE PHANTOM MENACE(**)- for all the hype about this film, I must say I was very dissappointed. Mediocre acting, lame plot, and a not-cool villian make this the worst Star Wars film ever. It would have been better if the special effects had been done "muppet-style" like the previous movies. Let's face it: if this wasn't a Star Wars movie, no one would have seen it.
THE SUM OF ALL FEARS (**)- a bad movie based on a (so I hear) not-so-bad book by Tom Clancy about some Nazi terrorists who use a nuclear bomb to blow up the Super Bowl. It stars Ben Affleck, Morgan Freeman, and that tall, gaunt, skinny guy who always plays a government official (in this one he plays the President). It also stars many, many official-looking black cars, often driving in official-looking processions, and occasionally being blown over by official-looking nuclear shock waves. The plot follows Affleck as he evolves from blue-collar government paper pusher to international man of mystery, minus the mystery part. The climax of the film, needless to say, comes when the bomb actually goes off in Baltimore. Unfortunatley, this is also the low-point of the movie (and, for this movie, that's saying a lot). In my opinion, if you're going to have a movie revolve around the explosion of a huge bomb, then you should do your best to make the bomb-going-off scene really cool and dramatic. In "The Sum of All Fears", however, all we see are some shock waves and a whole lot of dust. Was this some sort of ploy to be tasteful in a post-September 11th world? If so, then why not just NOT show the explosion all together? Just show the aftermath, if that's how you want to play it. But don't go half way because it just comes out looking stupid. That's a tip kids; write it down. Also, in the ensuing dust storm we all but lose track of Affleck's character, and for a while it seems as if the script has forgotten about him entirley. The next thing we know he's wandering around in some sort of meat locker, fighting Germans with a chain. How did this happen? Where is this meat locker? How did Affleck end up there? These questions are never answered but, given that the rest of the plot is similarly lame-brained, that's not such a bad thing. The only movie I can think to compare this to is "Dr. Strangelove" which also featured the prospect of a nuclear war. The difference? "Dr. Strangelove" was origional, clever, and enjoyable.
SUNSHINE STATE (**1/2)- a strange thing happened while I was watching this movie; the elderly man sitting next to me in the theater fell asleep. Literally. He was snoring. And you know what? I don't blame him. Call me what you will. Say I'm not in touch with the arts, I have no sense of great writing, I don't appreciate fine acting. It won't change my opinion a bit. Sunshine State, the newest indie hit this summer, is flat out boring. And it's long.
The movie, set in Florida (hence the title) follows four seperate stories which all revolve around the proposed redevelopment of a small coastal town which, as the movie opens, is getting ready to celebrate it's annual "Buccaneer Days", a kind of cutsey, historical-related carnival. Sounds like a good premise for a film, right? Sort of Pulp Fiction meets Waiting for Guffman? Well, it would be, except for the fact that all of the characters in the movie are miserable and depressed. Half the time they're whining about the past, and the other half they're whining about the present. The only likeable characters are the greedy golfers who bookend the film, delivering speeches about putting "nature on a leash".
The good aspects of the film are, as I mentioned previously, the acting and the dialogue. All of the actors here are topnotch, creating so much subtext for their characters you practically want to scream at them to say what they really mean. The relationships they build between one another onscreen are intense and complex. Their dialogue is intelligent and meaningful, something you don't often find in cinema these days. Occasionally it even seems liteary, as if you were reading a book by Faulkner rather than watching a film. If the whole thing hadn's been so unbelievably boring, it might have been worth it.
SUPER COP 2 (*1/2)- this is, in my opinion, the worst Jackie Chan movie ever. The plot is too confusing, and there's too much of it. People watch Jackie Chan for action, not story! We want crazy stunts, and bad dubbing! (actually, the dubbing in Super Cop 2 is hilariously atrocious, as it should be.)
SWORDFISH (****)- it opens with John Travolta staring into the camera and delivering a monologue about how movies these days are getting worse and worse because they aren't believable enough. What follows this monologue is one of the most implausible, but thoroughly entertaining, movies to come along this year. "Swordfish" is basically a bunch of sexually explicit and violent scenes strung together with a thin yet rather confusing plot involving computer hackers and crooked government officials. There are car chases, helicopters, bombs, guns, corny lines, and even cornier haircuts (John Travolta's hairdo in this movie rivals his dreds in Battlefield Earth, if you ask me). Yet for how bad it sounds, the movie is actually quite good, because it dosen't take itsself too seriously. The entire thing is kind of tounge-in-cheek, where everyone seems to know just how crazy and unbelievable the events that are happening really are, but dosen't say anything. The movie revels in the fact that it IS a movie. People who dislike this movie are probably missing the point that it is not meant to be taken seiously. But perhaps the thing I liked best about the movie was that much of it was filmed right here in Ventura, California. It's an odd sensation to watch computerized bullets rip past the shops you've been to so many times in reality, and see police cars explode mear feet from where you've parked your car outside. I don't know. I just thought it was really neat. So, in the end, I think I would have to suggest this movie pretty highly. While it may not be the most logical or well-written movie, it is certainly one of the most entertaining, and that, I think, is what most of us pay our eight bucks for.
...and don't come back
Email: dumbsweater@aol.com