I can imagine why he'd want to die, after starring in this rubbish. The man is incredible, but even Sidney Poitier couldn't save this tiresome morality play about racism in the old West. He and Joanna Going are both fantastic in this film: too bad the screenplay, co-stars, directing, and score couldn't match those two.
Reviews
20 Reviews
Pet Sematary
(1989)
The only horror in this movie are the production values...
17 January 2001
Sloppy casting, shoddy directing, and a pathetic score.
I'm not sure why this woman was chosen to direct it, but it wasn't a particularly good choice. She takes an austere, uninspired approach to direction. She dutifully films every sequence, but without any art or craft.
And they should know by now that King can't write screenplays worth a darn, neither. I love the man's earlier books ('Salems Lot is still my favorite) but his screenplays usually aren't very good (Creepshow being the only notable exception).
If I were to re-make this movie, I'd have David Fincher or Bryan Singer (or possibly Stuart Gordon) direct and have either Jery Goldsmith or Danny Elfman compose the score. "Pet Semetary" doesn't work as a straight-out slasher film, but rather as a brooding, inevitable descent into madness and horror.
I'm not sure why this woman was chosen to direct it, but it wasn't a particularly good choice. She takes an austere, uninspired approach to direction. She dutifully films every sequence, but without any art or craft.
And they should know by now that King can't write screenplays worth a darn, neither. I love the man's earlier books ('Salems Lot is still my favorite) but his screenplays usually aren't very good (Creepshow being the only notable exception).
If I were to re-make this movie, I'd have David Fincher or Bryan Singer (or possibly Stuart Gordon) direct and have either Jery Goldsmith or Danny Elfman compose the score. "Pet Semetary" doesn't work as a straight-out slasher film, but rather as a brooding, inevitable descent into madness and horror.
Doctor Who
(1996 TV Movie)
BUTCHERY!!!
25 December 2000
What an incredible affront to all the people who grew up with the sometimes-good, sometimes-bad television! But even at its absolute *worst*, the television program was never as bad as this movie. This movie takes all the gimicks of Dr. Who (the TARDIS, regeneration, the Master, etc.) but leaves out all of the *heart* and *style* of the show. What remains is ... well, fortunately it didn't live long.
How on Earth they could get the apple to fall so far from the tree is beyond me. Had the writers of the movie even *seen* the show?
How on Earth they could get the apple to fall so far from the tree is beyond me. Had the writers of the movie even *seen* the show?
Pi
(1998)
Smart ... but not all THAT smart.
25 August 2000
I do admit it's a more intelligent film than the usual schlock, but from the advertising you're led to believe that this is a brilliant, insightful combination of religion, magic, and mathematics. However, the connection is never really made, only hinted at, and the film is rather like a very yummy appetizer ... without a main course.
The Challenge
(1982)
Very under-rated as a cultural drama and as an action movie
10 March 2000
I've always thought that this movie deserved better than it got. This film, while flawed in many ways, is still a very good one. It's an excellent study on the clash of cultures, both internally and externally, as Japan is forced to decide whether to embrace the culture of those who dropped atomic bombs on them, or cling to their traditional values ... or to try to make a shaky compromise. It's also a study on what constitutes honor and friendship. And not the least, it's a drama ... with an incredible action-packed finale!
As an action film solely, audiences are sure to be disappointed. The action is intense, but it's relatively brief. Renaming this film to the laughable "Sword of the Ninja" only compounds this problem, luring in action fans who had already chose to pass on the picture. Well, this only made them angrier.
It really is quite a good film. Give it half a chance. Glenn and Mifune are terrific in it as always.
As an action film solely, audiences are sure to be disappointed. The action is intense, but it's relatively brief. Renaming this film to the laughable "Sword of the Ninja" only compounds this problem, luring in action fans who had already chose to pass on the picture. Well, this only made them angrier.
It really is quite a good film. Give it half a chance. Glenn and Mifune are terrific in it as always.
Blackjack
(1998 TV Movie)
Not bad ... for television
21 February 2000
Let's face it. Television's motto should be: "Just as good as it takes to keep you watching our commercials ... and no more." Television is a medium of mediocrity. If they're going to make it big, if they're going to make it *good*, they're going to make it for the big screen, not the little one.
Which is why "Blackjack" was a pleasant surprise. Oh, it's not Woo's best works, not by far. But it is some of the best TELEVISION I've seen in a long time. The characters have at least 2 dimensions, which puts them heads and shoulders above the TV competition, and the action, while hokey in a few places, is actually quite thrilling to watch.
I wouldn't use this TV movie to introduce new people to the magic of John Woo's films (I'd use "Face/Off" or "The Killer" for that), but if you're a Woo fanatic (like I am), then you will almost certainly enjoy this movie. Even at his worst, and this is possibly his worst, he's still better the competition.
How's THAT for praise? :-)
Which is why "Blackjack" was a pleasant surprise. Oh, it's not Woo's best works, not by far. But it is some of the best TELEVISION I've seen in a long time. The characters have at least 2 dimensions, which puts them heads and shoulders above the TV competition, and the action, while hokey in a few places, is actually quite thrilling to watch.
I wouldn't use this TV movie to introduce new people to the magic of John Woo's films (I'd use "Face/Off" or "The Killer" for that), but if you're a Woo fanatic (like I am), then you will almost certainly enjoy this movie. Even at his worst, and this is possibly his worst, he's still better the competition.
How's THAT for praise? :-)
Pitch Black
(2000)
"Aliens", but with an indy flavor
20 February 2000
Very cleverly created, "Pitch Black" combines the general premise of "Aliens" (shipwrecked on a hostile planet at the mercy of hordes of ravenous monsters) but with the willingness to break the rules and stereotypes found in mainstream movies.
The film is artfully done, though sometimes the camera work can get muddled. (I suspect that this is partly deliberate to obscure flaws in the special effects or fight choreography.) The coloration is brilliant (often literally), and the score adequate. The sound effects leave something to be desired. (Every time I heard the creatures, I felt that the heroes were due to have a school of whales decent upon them ...)
Still, this had the raw, quirky edge to it found in some of the lesser-known works of Australia and New Zealand, like "The Quiet Earth" and "The Last Wave". It's quite scary for most of the film, and while it's not flawless, it deserves quite a lot of credit for what it's accomplished.
Highly recommended!
The film is artfully done, though sometimes the camera work can get muddled. (I suspect that this is partly deliberate to obscure flaws in the special effects or fight choreography.) The coloration is brilliant (often literally), and the score adequate. The sound effects leave something to be desired. (Every time I heard the creatures, I felt that the heroes were due to have a school of whales decent upon them ...)
Still, this had the raw, quirky edge to it found in some of the lesser-known works of Australia and New Zealand, like "The Quiet Earth" and "The Last Wave". It's quite scary for most of the film, and while it's not flawless, it deserves quite a lot of credit for what it's accomplished.
Highly recommended!
The Green Mile
(1999)
Not bad, but a little too desperate to please
27 December 1999
The Green Mile was fortunate to have such an outstanding cast, because the material wasn't top grade. It wasn't bad, mind you, but it was the typical wow, gee whiz, aren't we going to be a movie that will win Best Picture schmaltz that all the good directors occasionally release in a moment of Oscar avarice and weakness.
The story was definitely engaging, but it was also trite and overly convenient. Events seemed forced so as to allow for future events. At times it felt like effect was driving cause and not the other way around.
Still, the cast is without exception, *phenomenal*. They take a mediocre script and even at times directing, and really turn it up a notch.
The result: an above average film that's slightly pretentious, but does ultimately deliver much of what it promises. Definitely worth the trip! :)
The story was definitely engaging, but it was also trite and overly convenient. Events seemed forced so as to allow for future events. At times it felt like effect was driving cause and not the other way around.
Still, the cast is without exception, *phenomenal*. They take a mediocre script and even at times directing, and really turn it up a notch.
The result: an above average film that's slightly pretentious, but does ultimately deliver much of what it promises. Definitely worth the trip! :)
Strictly Ballroom
(1992)
A stunning satire, yet you still care about the characters!
16 August 1999
Baz Luhrman has accomplished something of a minor miracle here. Let's face it, we've all seen the underdogs-who-want-to-win-and-will-win-in-the-final-competition movies. They're a dime a dozen, starting with Rocky and coming out every couple of years or so.
We've all seen these movies. But so has Luhrman. And he KNOWS we've all seen it before, so he throws a brilliant touch of ironic, witty self-consciousness into the movie.
Because honestly, what the characters want (to win an obscure dance competition) is pretty small stuff. And their drive to win it is, well, kind of funny. But -- and this is where Luhrman shows his skill as a director -- winning this competition, as small as it is, is *important* to the characters. They want to win it, and by gosh, we want them to win it too.
Scott and Fran are strange people, but darn it if we can't help but to like them and hope they win. We truly care about them, and their plight, silly as it often is, can bring tears to our eyes and smiles to our faces. It's this unique mix of parody and genuine involvement with the characters that makes this a *delightful* romantic comedy.
I too had no interest in seeing dance movies. I expected to want to fast forward over the dance sequences. By the end, I was almost annoyed when they cut AWAY from the dance sequences. That's how breathtaking they can be when you care about the people dancing.
Very highly recommended!
We've all seen these movies. But so has Luhrman. And he KNOWS we've all seen it before, so he throws a brilliant touch of ironic, witty self-consciousness into the movie.
Because honestly, what the characters want (to win an obscure dance competition) is pretty small stuff. And their drive to win it is, well, kind of funny. But -- and this is where Luhrman shows his skill as a director -- winning this competition, as small as it is, is *important* to the characters. They want to win it, and by gosh, we want them to win it too.
Scott and Fran are strange people, but darn it if we can't help but to like them and hope they win. We truly care about them, and their plight, silly as it often is, can bring tears to our eyes and smiles to our faces. It's this unique mix of parody and genuine involvement with the characters that makes this a *delightful* romantic comedy.
I too had no interest in seeing dance movies. I expected to want to fast forward over the dance sequences. By the end, I was almost annoyed when they cut AWAY from the dance sequences. That's how breathtaking they can be when you care about the people dancing.
Very highly recommended!
The Sixth Sense
(1999)
Deft and creepy, exceedingly well-acted and directed
8 August 1999
What a renaissance we're having. In the wake of such blockbuster duds as "The Phantom Menace" and the oh-so-dreadful remake of "The Haunting" we find such soft-but-powerful films coming our way as "A Simple Plan", "The Blair Witch Project", and "Life is Beautiful". It's encouraging, because it tells us that in the midst of this banal "bigger is better" mentality, there are still some studios, some writers, so actors, and some directors who know better.
This is a result of such a collaboration. Its power resides not in spectral special effects and big explosions in the middle of city streets (sending cars flying into the air, no less), but instead on the requisite basics so often neglected these days: a solid script, talented actors, a gripping score, and deft directing. This film has all of these.
I could write endlessly on this film, but I can sum it up as follows: this is an intelligent, moving, exciting, and chilling film.
Or to put it another way: this is not The Phantom Menace.
Highly recommended.
This is a result of such a collaboration. Its power resides not in spectral special effects and big explosions in the middle of city streets (sending cars flying into the air, no less), but instead on the requisite basics so often neglected these days: a solid script, talented actors, a gripping score, and deft directing. This film has all of these.
I could write endlessly on this film, but I can sum it up as follows: this is an intelligent, moving, exciting, and chilling film.
Or to put it another way: this is not The Phantom Menace.
Highly recommended.
The Blair Witch Project
(1999)
Brilliant! Everything the remake of "The Haunting" isn't!
31 July 1999
This is a film that demands attention. It is a brilliant new approach to a tired genre that has issued forth from its withered loins such tiresome instances of schlock as the remake of "The Haunting" (the 1963 original was *amazing*, but the 1999 version was a joke) and "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer".
This film isn't perfect, and I only gave it an eight, but if I were to rate it on sheer inventiveness and outright chutzpah, I would give it a *twelve* on a scale from one to ten. While the movie doesn't exactly deliver on all the promises it makes, it delivers on quite a good number of them, yielding a raw, new, harrowing film ... so different from our usual movie-going experiences that it practically starts a whole new genre!
If I had to compare it to other films (and this is hard) I'd have to say that it most resembles "The Evil Dead" in its inventiveness and brutal paranoia, and "Seven" in its gritty "this is real life" feel.
Also worth mentioning is the clever "is it real" mythology that the marketing guys have built around this movie. Go to http://www.blairwitch.com to see "actual interviews" with family members and a chronology of the Blair Witch. Astonishing!
I whole-heartedly recommend this film, flaws and all. Hell, I wish I had made it myself! :)
This film isn't perfect, and I only gave it an eight, but if I were to rate it on sheer inventiveness and outright chutzpah, I would give it a *twelve* on a scale from one to ten. While the movie doesn't exactly deliver on all the promises it makes, it delivers on quite a good number of them, yielding a raw, new, harrowing film ... so different from our usual movie-going experiences that it practically starts a whole new genre!
If I had to compare it to other films (and this is hard) I'd have to say that it most resembles "The Evil Dead" in its inventiveness and brutal paranoia, and "Seven" in its gritty "this is real life" feel.
Also worth mentioning is the clever "is it real" mythology that the marketing guys have built around this movie. Go to http://www.blairwitch.com to see "actual interviews" with family members and a chronology of the Blair Witch. Astonishing!
I whole-heartedly recommend this film, flaws and all. Hell, I wish I had made it myself! :)
A Simple Plan
(1998)
Sam Raimi has hit his stride
9 July 1999
Sam Raimi is a brilliant director who has finely found the restraint necessary to make him a *great* director. His ideas are strikingly original (and oft imitated) and his use of these ideas can be likened to a Corvette or Mustang: not a heck of a lot of finesse, but a heck of a lot of showy power
But with this film, we're entering Lexus and Mercedes territory. Now he's got the power, but he's also got the style, restraint, and elegance necessary to utilize that power in incredibly beautiful and efficient ways.
The actors in this film are equally brilliant and restrained, and I can fault none of them. This is one of truly rare examples of (near-) perfect American cinema. And how appropriate that it's film noir. :)
I won't reveal any of the plot twists, but I will say that this is a film noir worthy of being viewed along side films such as "Blood Simple", "The Maltese Falcon", and "Laura".
Excellent, excellent film. See it!
But with this film, we're entering Lexus and Mercedes territory. Now he's got the power, but he's also got the style, restraint, and elegance necessary to utilize that power in incredibly beautiful and efficient ways.
The actors in this film are equally brilliant and restrained, and I can fault none of them. This is one of truly rare examples of (near-) perfect American cinema. And how appropriate that it's film noir. :)
I won't reveal any of the plot twists, but I will say that this is a film noir worthy of being viewed along side films such as "Blood Simple", "The Maltese Falcon", and "Laura".
Excellent, excellent film. See it!
Wild Wild West
(1999)
Only a screenplay this bad ...
3 July 1999
Only a screenplay this bad could spoil talent this good. When you combine the incredible acting ability of Kenneth Brannagh, the inestimatable humor skills of Kevin Kline, and the sheer charisma and style of Will Smith, not to mention the capably quirky directing of Barry Sonnenfeld, you would expect a very entertaining movie.
Or at least not this drek.
This movie, plain and simple, stunk to high heaven. Everybody tried so very hard, but to no avail. The script just was too muddled and clumsy.
In particular, I'm remembering a scene in which Smith and Brannagh, as hero and villain, are exchanging rejoinders. The lines are meant to be witty, but they're not. They're meant to be cutting, but they're not. They're meant to be enjoyable ... and they almost are, due to the talent of the two actors. They're trying their best, you can tell, to take those stupid lines and make them convincing (in much the same way that Gene Hackman did with his part in "Superman IV"), but even these actors aren't up to the Herculean labor this entails.
And poor Kevin Kline! He just seems to have a knack for finding films that waste his talent; worse, make him look like a bad actor. Anybody remember "In and Out", that homophobic movie that felt like a two hour "knock-knock" joke? The man is talented; we all know that. Look at "A Fish Called Wanda". "The January Man". "Sophie's Choice". His work in NY's Shakespeare in the Park. This is a good actor, and for such a great actor to look so bad ... oh, the humanity!
Don't see this movie. Trust me. But also don't give up on the cast or director. They have talent, really. Buckets of it. You just can't tell in this movie.
Or at least not this drek.
This movie, plain and simple, stunk to high heaven. Everybody tried so very hard, but to no avail. The script just was too muddled and clumsy.
In particular, I'm remembering a scene in which Smith and Brannagh, as hero and villain, are exchanging rejoinders. The lines are meant to be witty, but they're not. They're meant to be cutting, but they're not. They're meant to be enjoyable ... and they almost are, due to the talent of the two actors. They're trying their best, you can tell, to take those stupid lines and make them convincing (in much the same way that Gene Hackman did with his part in "Superman IV"), but even these actors aren't up to the Herculean labor this entails.
And poor Kevin Kline! He just seems to have a knack for finding films that waste his talent; worse, make him look like a bad actor. Anybody remember "In and Out", that homophobic movie that felt like a two hour "knock-knock" joke? The man is talented; we all know that. Look at "A Fish Called Wanda". "The January Man". "Sophie's Choice". His work in NY's Shakespeare in the Park. This is a good actor, and for such a great actor to look so bad ... oh, the humanity!
Don't see this movie. Trust me. But also don't give up on the cast or director. They have talent, really. Buckets of it. You just can't tell in this movie.
A Galatic Ishtar (but not as entertaining)
28 May 1999
This movie was inexcusably wooden. With the caliber of talent and money that went into this film, it should have been superlative. Instead, it was diminutive.
It's been said that if you had an infinite number of monkeys working infinitely long on an infinite number of typewriters, eventually one of them would type out the works of William Shakespeare.
The special effects were nice, but frankly, so what? Special effects serve only to further the plot, and if the correct plot to effects ratio were maintained, the only special effects you would have needed would be plastic model spacecrafts suspendeded from fishing wire.
Yes, it's that good.
It's been said that if you had an infinite number of monkeys working infinitely long on an infinite number of typewriters, eventually one of them would type out the works of William Shakespeare.
The special effects were nice, but frankly, so what? Special effects serve only to further the plot, and if the correct plot to effects ratio were maintained, the only special effects you would have needed would be plastic model spacecrafts suspendeded from fishing wire.
Yes, it's that good.
Shakespeare in Love
(1998)
Not bad, but woefully overrated.
19 April 1999
This is "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" for people who don't know Shakespeare. This is not Stoppard in peak form, but rather Stoppard needing to make a quick buck. It's clever, true, and fun to watch, but ultimately predictable and ponderous, and nowhere near as good as "A Simple Plan" or "Life is Beautiful", two films that *definitely* deserved the Best Picture more than this film.
Paltrow's a talented actress, but her Academy Award for this particular film is a joke. Sheeze, show a little skin and look constipated (apparently, this is what passes for a look of emotional anguish in this film), and your career is guaranteed. Her performance in Seven was a thousand times better, and as was as underrated as her performance in "Shakespeare in Love" was OVERrated.
Still, worth a watching. It's not bad -- quite witty in places -- and Dench absolutely steals the show.
But still, do yourself a favor. See "A Simple Plan" or "Life is Beautiful" first. Heck, for that matter, see "The Matrix" before you see this.
Paltrow's a talented actress, but her Academy Award for this particular film is a joke. Sheeze, show a little skin and look constipated (apparently, this is what passes for a look of emotional anguish in this film), and your career is guaranteed. Her performance in Seven was a thousand times better, and as was as underrated as her performance in "Shakespeare in Love" was OVERrated.
Still, worth a watching. It's not bad -- quite witty in places -- and Dench absolutely steals the show.
But still, do yourself a favor. See "A Simple Plan" or "Life is Beautiful" first. Heck, for that matter, see "The Matrix" before you see this.
The Matrix
(1999)
Very ingenious, but not without flaws
2 April 1999
Even with all the hype about this film, it actually managed to live up to most of its promise. This is a very fast-paced, inventive, and visually stunning film. Every shot is breathtaking and aesthetically brilliant. The costumes, makeup, sets, and casting is top-notch.
There are flaws, however. The movie seems to be constantly just falling short of its promises. Every sequence is amazing, yet you're left with the feeling that perhaps it could have been even better still. The action has been touted as even better than John Woo, yet I found the sequences somewhat derivative of the great Hong Kong director.
Finally, the ending was a cop out. It was *almost* satisfying, but the film decided to get cute. It's like watching an amazing Olympic race in which one runner is so fast that he quickly outdistances all the other runners ... and then, mere inches from the finish line he shows his contempt by not crossing it. "I won this race," he says arrogantly, "and everybody knows it, so why bother crossing the finish line?"
Well, that's what this movie was like. It didn't have to bring everything to a nice tidy ending, true, but it could have done so so easily that it's obnoxious and pretentious that it didn't.
However, even with these flaws, this is a major work. It's inventive and ingenious and a work of art. Even where it rips off old ideas (such as by Phillip K. Dick and William Gibson), it at least has the integrity to come up with its own variations.
There are flaws, however. The movie seems to be constantly just falling short of its promises. Every sequence is amazing, yet you're left with the feeling that perhaps it could have been even better still. The action has been touted as even better than John Woo, yet I found the sequences somewhat derivative of the great Hong Kong director.
Finally, the ending was a cop out. It was *almost* satisfying, but the film decided to get cute. It's like watching an amazing Olympic race in which one runner is so fast that he quickly outdistances all the other runners ... and then, mere inches from the finish line he shows his contempt by not crossing it. "I won this race," he says arrogantly, "and everybody knows it, so why bother crossing the finish line?"
Well, that's what this movie was like. It didn't have to bring everything to a nice tidy ending, true, but it could have done so so easily that it's obnoxious and pretentious that it didn't.
However, even with these flaws, this is a major work. It's inventive and ingenious and a work of art. Even where it rips off old ideas (such as by Phillip K. Dick and William Gibson), it at least has the integrity to come up with its own variations.
There's Something About Mary
(1998)
Simply unpleasant to watch
5 October 1998
I know I'm a freak. Everybody else loved this movie, but I detested it.
I simply found it unpleasant to watch. I'm not opposed to physical comedy -- I thought "The Naked Gun" was hysterical. I'm not even opposed to comedy in bad taste -- I thought "Eating Raul" was terrific.
No, this film just had few redeeming characteristics.
All the characters in this film, with the exception of Mary herself, are hateful, deceitful, pathetic monsters. I don't care about them other than mildly hoping they'll get what they want so that at least the movie will END. But no, sixteen hours later, they're still flailing about. At least it *felt* like sixteen hours. It might have been more.
This is just an unpleasant film. It's gross and aesthetically vile. How long can one person sit and watch enormous zits and sperm in a woman's hair and fishhooks getting caught in a man's mouth? Is this what passes for humor these days?
Apparently so, because everybody but me thought it was hysterical.
I have two ways of rating a film. One is "the watch-meter", which is simply this: how many times did I look at my watch during the movie? In this case, I lost count.
The other is a simple yes or no question: given the choice between sitting in this theater and watching this movie for two hours, or sitting in this theater and staring at a blank movie screen for two hours, which would I choose?
In this case, "Something About Mary" won out ... but *just barely*. I cautiously recommend seeing this movie over staring at a blank screen for two hours. Ask me tomorrow, and I might not give the same recommendation.
In summary: yuck.
I simply found it unpleasant to watch. I'm not opposed to physical comedy -- I thought "The Naked Gun" was hysterical. I'm not even opposed to comedy in bad taste -- I thought "Eating Raul" was terrific.
No, this film just had few redeeming characteristics.
All the characters in this film, with the exception of Mary herself, are hateful, deceitful, pathetic monsters. I don't care about them other than mildly hoping they'll get what they want so that at least the movie will END. But no, sixteen hours later, they're still flailing about. At least it *felt* like sixteen hours. It might have been more.
This is just an unpleasant film. It's gross and aesthetically vile. How long can one person sit and watch enormous zits and sperm in a woman's hair and fishhooks getting caught in a man's mouth? Is this what passes for humor these days?
Apparently so, because everybody but me thought it was hysterical.
I have two ways of rating a film. One is "the watch-meter", which is simply this: how many times did I look at my watch during the movie? In this case, I lost count.
The other is a simple yes or no question: given the choice between sitting in this theater and watching this movie for two hours, or sitting in this theater and staring at a blank movie screen for two hours, which would I choose?
In this case, "Something About Mary" won out ... but *just barely*. I cautiously recommend seeing this movie over staring at a blank screen for two hours. Ask me tomorrow, and I might not give the same recommendation.
In summary: yuck.
What Dreams May Come
(1998)
A lot better than the critics have led us to believe
5 October 1998
All right, the critics who have panned this film do have a point. This movie is muddled and not a heck of a lot happens in it. It's oversweet, and somewhat unsatisfying -- sort of like eating cotton candy for two hours.
But even with these serious flaws (and they are serious flaws), this is a beautiful film. It's a stunning work of art. The visuals are absolutely amazing, the use of colors is genius, and the Kamen score brilliant. This is a clearly a case where style triumphs over substance.
A number of critics have complained that the dialogue was wooden. I think this is due in part to our desensitivation to underplayed dialogue by DiCaprio-esque actors who insist on screaming all their lines. "I love you," isn't good enough. These days, it has to be "I LOVE YOU!!!!!!!!!!" screamed with heart-wrenching anguish while ripping open their T-Shirts in the rain. Here Williams, Sciorra (sp?), Gooding, and Von Sydow actually *deliver* their lines with a restraint that is refreshing to see. There certainly is emotion in them, and seemingly genuine at that, but it's a subtle delivery and one that can easily be missed by today's audiences if expectations aren't carefully set.
I guess their are two types of filmgoers: those who love schmaltz and those who don't. If you don't love schmaltz, you'll be intensely bored with this film. If you *do* love schmaltz, you'll be blown away and bored in about equal measure.
But even with these serious flaws (and they are serious flaws), this is a beautiful film. It's a stunning work of art. The visuals are absolutely amazing, the use of colors is genius, and the Kamen score brilliant. This is a clearly a case where style triumphs over substance.
A number of critics have complained that the dialogue was wooden. I think this is due in part to our desensitivation to underplayed dialogue by DiCaprio-esque actors who insist on screaming all their lines. "I love you," isn't good enough. These days, it has to be "I LOVE YOU!!!!!!!!!!" screamed with heart-wrenching anguish while ripping open their T-Shirts in the rain. Here Williams, Sciorra (sp?), Gooding, and Von Sydow actually *deliver* their lines with a restraint that is refreshing to see. There certainly is emotion in them, and seemingly genuine at that, but it's a subtle delivery and one that can easily be missed by today's audiences if expectations aren't carefully set.
I guess their are two types of filmgoers: those who love schmaltz and those who don't. If you don't love schmaltz, you'll be intensely bored with this film. If you *do* love schmaltz, you'll be blown away and bored in about equal measure.
Antz
(1998)
But when does it get *good*?
5 October 1998
Yeah, sure it's clever. The animation is terrific. But it's so formulaic and dry, you can go to the restroom, buy some popcorn, chat up the lady at the concessions stand, and then come back *and you haven't MISSED anything*.
I'll be the first to admit that this movie has the moments, and the animation is really breathtaking at times, but when are today's film-makers going to remember that it's PLOT, DIRECTING, and ACTING (or in this case voice-acting) that make a movie and not special effects?
The animation in this movie was computer-generated. It seemed like the screenplay was too.
I'll be the first to admit that this movie has the moments, and the animation is really breathtaking at times, but when are today's film-makers going to remember that it's PLOT, DIRECTING, and ACTING (or in this case voice-acting) that make a movie and not special effects?
The animation in this movie was computer-generated. It seemed like the screenplay was too.
Tell Your Friends