suegn Reviews

Anaconda (1997)

So it's true - Jennifer Lopez really can't act!

[1/10 · 5 May 2003]

A friend of mine told me to see this movie, knowing that I enjoy horror / monster type movies as a way to relax from the stresses of the "real world". Until I waste my time watching what amounts to a poor excuse of putting a number of idiots with the combine IQ of a turnip on some boat heading down the Amazon River not knowing where they are going and trusting some character (John Voight, who should have known better) who comes "from the mist". Did anyone bother to ask how he got there? Or how the lethal bee got into Eric Stoltz's character's diving gear? And the list goes on...

But that aside, I have not seen acting this bad since a couple of friends and I sat down one Saturday night to muddle through "Battlefield Earth". And it is true - Jennifer Lopez cannot act - much of what she did, or at least attempted to do, was strained at best. And since when is it written that successful rappers actually make talented and successful actors and actresses? Ice Cube's facial expression and voice modulation did not change through most of the movie. I suppose that it would have been more interesting if he had broken out into song just to get the storyline moving.

To me, the sign of a bad movie is when you, as the viewer, start cheering for the "bad guy" to win. A good example of this is the Phantom Menace - I was so hoping that Darth Maul would exterminate them all! In this movie, I was hoping the snake would end it all, but in the end, the entire premise sank. Avoid this movie...

The English Patient (1996)

The oscars have lost their luster

[8 November 2000]

I almost never go to the movies, having been disappointed so many times in the past. Instead, I wait until these movies go to video, then check them out at the local library. Cheap yes, but I don't feel disgusted with myself for having financed some so-called actor's lifestyle if the movie turns out to be a disappointment. Which this movie was.

Yes, the music and the cinematography were mesmerizing - I haven't seen the equal since Apocalypse Now. But such beauty could not sustain my interest for 3 hours. The movie spent most of its time fantasizing and romanticizing about adultery and treason, which was bad enough. But maybe this was just a reflection of our society and its morals and ideals (or lack thereof) as they exist today. Interesting how the downward spiral of our society can be seen in the so-called "masterpieces" coming out of Hollywood. Titanic comes to mind - nicely filmed, beautiful settings, but one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

Unfortunately, the oscars haven't meant very much since the 70s. Thank the Lord for free library movie rentals!

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

Too much hype, too little substance.

[2/10 · 10 January 2000]

I am a big fan of the first three Star Wars movies, and had hoped that the mystery and almost childlike grandeur of the others would be repeated in this chapter/movie. But alas no. This movie had the feel of an expensive, long, overblown advertisement for Star Wars toys and video games. Even the feel of the characters wasn't there. Most seemed to be just "going through the motions". I could not make myself empathize with any of them. To me, there are two sure signs that a movie is lousy: 1) you look at your watch every 15 minutes or so; and 2) you start to hope that the "bad guys" win. I did both. The special effects were amazingly wonderful, but the movie itself was empty. It wasn't even fun to watch. Would I recommend it? NO! If you are a fan of Star Wars, stick with the first three movies. They were MUCH BETTER!

The BBC Television Shakespeare: Hamlet, Prince of Denmark (1980) Season 2, Episode 6

The best of the Hamlets

[10/10 · 7 January 2000]

I have seen all the film interpretations of Hamlet, from Sir Lawrence Olivier to Mel Gibson (gasp). Derek Jacobi captures the true essence of the character, from the beginning to the brutal climax. Superb acting all around. This one should not be missed.

The Mummy (1999)

Just a lot of stupid fun.

[9/10 · 6 January 2000]

When I watch a movie to relax (and I mean relax!), I am not looking for something that will "tax the brain cells." This movie certainly cannot be compared to Kenneth Branaugh's Henry V or Stanley Kubrick's 2001, a Space Odyssey, nor should it be. This movie is for fun, plain and simple. The acting is adequate, the special effects are good but not overpowering, and the movie, though long, never seemed to drag on and on as others do ("The Titanic" comes to mind).

I know that there were comparisons (at least in some of the movie reviews that I read) to the new Star Wars movie. I must honestly admit that I enjoyed this movie much more than Star Wars (and I'm a big fan of the first 3 Star Wars movies). Maybe because unlike Star Wars, the viewer actually got to know some of the characters in the Mummy, unlike Star Wars, where the viewer had to fight through the special effects just to find out if there were real characters or not.

If you want intellectual stimulus, this movie is NOT IT. But if you're looking for good, clean fun, you might just enjoy it.