On the surface, there's a lot about Reckless that spells turkey. Troubled and angry boy from the wrong side of town falls for the pretty rich cheerleader. Well, we all have seen that a million times, from Rebel Without a Cause to The Breakfast Club. Then there is the casting of actors who are transparently too old to play teenagers. Yet there is something about Reckless that draws one in and keeps them there for the full 90 minutes, and that something is in two words: Aidan Quinn. His performance is so on the mark, we can so easily feel his pain and angst, and that's not easy considering much of his lines are insipid. And yes, we cant overlook the fact that he is very easy on the eyes (the word dreamy comes to mind). But Quinn shows in this picture and most of his subsequent work that he is not merely just another pretty face, but a fine actor.
Reviews
8 Reviews
Shakespeare in Love
(1998)
Never was a story of such woe....
26 September 2002
Shakespeare in Love was offered as the movie on an international flight I took some time ago. It was the only time I recall actually trying to will the plane to crash, in the hope I would be spared the sheer torture this picture is.
I dont know where to begin in how terrible this movie really is. The acting is terrible and at no point did I feel any sympathy for the characters. Joseph Fiennes spends so much time acting like some lame doe-eyed tortured soul I wanted to jump out of my seat and punch him. At least he was acting which is more we can say about Paltrow and Ben Affleck. Their performance is so stiff and wooden I began to think they really were not in this movie but instead were replaced by cardboard cut outs. The story is so insipid and so convoluted I can only imagine hillbillies and small dogs being entertained. Judi Dench, one of the finest actresses to practice her craft must have been drunk or drugged when she agreed to do this film. Anyone who needs proof that the Oscars are a sham needs only to be told Paltrow won an Oscar for this piece of drivel.
Never was a story of such woe
than awarding an Oscar to Paltrow
I dont know where to begin in how terrible this movie really is. The acting is terrible and at no point did I feel any sympathy for the characters. Joseph Fiennes spends so much time acting like some lame doe-eyed tortured soul I wanted to jump out of my seat and punch him. At least he was acting which is more we can say about Paltrow and Ben Affleck. Their performance is so stiff and wooden I began to think they really were not in this movie but instead were replaced by cardboard cut outs. The story is so insipid and so convoluted I can only imagine hillbillies and small dogs being entertained. Judi Dench, one of the finest actresses to practice her craft must have been drunk or drugged when she agreed to do this film. Anyone who needs proof that the Oscars are a sham needs only to be told Paltrow won an Oscar for this piece of drivel.
Never was a story of such woe
than awarding an Oscar to Paltrow
Evita
(1996)
Mediocrity set to music
26 September 2002
Quite possibly one of the worst things to ever inch its way through a projector. When compared to the original stage production we get plot replaced by over staged pageantry and acting replaced by posing.
It is impossible to talk about Evita without considering the presence of Madonna. Not since the hunt for Scarlet O Hara was there as much chatter about the casting of a film role. The Julliard trained Patti LuPone, who created the role on the stage found it too taxing and could not do matinees. So if someone like LuPone finds the role a handful, how can Madonna do? Poorly is how.
In the nearly 20 years Madonna has been around there are a few things we know about her abilities. We know she can write a good pop tune, we know she can dance. Her greatest talent is of course her ability to market herself and her worse talent is her acting. But in Evita, she sings not one song written by her, and due to her state of pregnancy during the shoot does very little dancing. About the only interesting thing about this picture is the many imaginative ways she hides her swollen abdomen; Madonna standing behind a chair, Madonna holding a huge bouquet to her waist etc. As an actress Madonna is sub-par and she simply does not have the skills to play a character that first appears as a 16 year old girl and ends as a 33 year old cancer riddled dictator's wife. So limited is her acting range, so awkward is her body language her performance is almost embarrassing to watch. But it is her greatest talent, that of marketing herself, where the pay off appears to the tune of a Golden Globe.
Battling Madonna's omnipresence is the hint that this film has some sort of "epic" production values. We are constantly bombarded with huge crowd scenes which on even the most slightest of examination reveals the same crowd of actors, in the same location, pointing their attention to Madonna in yet another costume and hairstyle. Marketing is really the only thing Evita has going for itself. Countless people, who would never have the patience of sitting through a "real" opera can pat themselves on the back because they were wrongly convinced this was some great work of art.
When Evita first came on to the stage in the late 70s it was ahead of the curve in dealing with a story steeped in greed, corruption and sex. By the time it made it to the screen in the late 90s, these themes were abandoned for spin and marketing used to mask the shallow mediocrity that decade may best be known for.
It is impossible to talk about Evita without considering the presence of Madonna. Not since the hunt for Scarlet O Hara was there as much chatter about the casting of a film role. The Julliard trained Patti LuPone, who created the role on the stage found it too taxing and could not do matinees. So if someone like LuPone finds the role a handful, how can Madonna do? Poorly is how.
In the nearly 20 years Madonna has been around there are a few things we know about her abilities. We know she can write a good pop tune, we know she can dance. Her greatest talent is of course her ability to market herself and her worse talent is her acting. But in Evita, she sings not one song written by her, and due to her state of pregnancy during the shoot does very little dancing. About the only interesting thing about this picture is the many imaginative ways she hides her swollen abdomen; Madonna standing behind a chair, Madonna holding a huge bouquet to her waist etc. As an actress Madonna is sub-par and she simply does not have the skills to play a character that first appears as a 16 year old girl and ends as a 33 year old cancer riddled dictator's wife. So limited is her acting range, so awkward is her body language her performance is almost embarrassing to watch. But it is her greatest talent, that of marketing herself, where the pay off appears to the tune of a Golden Globe.
Battling Madonna's omnipresence is the hint that this film has some sort of "epic" production values. We are constantly bombarded with huge crowd scenes which on even the most slightest of examination reveals the same crowd of actors, in the same location, pointing their attention to Madonna in yet another costume and hairstyle. Marketing is really the only thing Evita has going for itself. Countless people, who would never have the patience of sitting through a "real" opera can pat themselves on the back because they were wrongly convinced this was some great work of art.
When Evita first came on to the stage in the late 70s it was ahead of the curve in dealing with a story steeped in greed, corruption and sex. By the time it made it to the screen in the late 90s, these themes were abandoned for spin and marketing used to mask the shallow mediocrity that decade may best be known for.
Sunshine State
(2002)
This film in one sentience; a two and a half hour sleeping pill.
9 August 2002
This film in one sentience; a two and a half hour sleeping pill.
It's not like this film is terrible, there are a few things that it does have going for it, the acting for the most part is good. But quite honestly, the characters are simply so uninteresting, and the story develops so slowly, one cant help but feel after an hour and half wondering what is the bloody point of it all. The premise, big bad developer is poised to plunder the natural beauty and old time sleepy community was hackneyed when it was a story line for a Walton's episode. Of course that should not mean a filmmaker cant take that story and do something novel or interesting with it, but that is really not what is happening here. I don't understand why so many people liked this picture. I have seen many more movies that deal better with the topics and situations these characters experience. The eight dollars admission and four dollars for a bottle of water could have been better spent.
It's not like this film is terrible, there are a few things that it does have going for it, the acting for the most part is good. But quite honestly, the characters are simply so uninteresting, and the story develops so slowly, one cant help but feel after an hour and half wondering what is the bloody point of it all. The premise, big bad developer is poised to plunder the natural beauty and old time sleepy community was hackneyed when it was a story line for a Walton's episode. Of course that should not mean a filmmaker cant take that story and do something novel or interesting with it, but that is really not what is happening here. I don't understand why so many people liked this picture. I have seen many more movies that deal better with the topics and situations these characters experience. The eight dollars admission and four dollars for a bottle of water could have been better spent.
Kurt & Courtney
(1998)
This film is a total waste of time, and any more ink spilled about it and its director is truly futile.
6 August 2002
What a disappointment. I sincerely hope that filmmaker Broomfield meant this as a parody, because there is no other way this picture works. For anyone who thinks that perhaps this was the filmmakers intent, to ridicule his subject, try to imagine what this film would be like if Michael Moore was the director. With the exception of Kurt's aunt, all the people interviewed are pathetic. None of them shed any light on the subject, they only merely establish themselves and the filmmaker as dismal and sad. And if that is not bad enough, they are so uninteresting. I really had a hard time paying attention to this movie and am so grateful I saw it on cable and not for $12 in an art house. Broomfield slams Love every chance he gets, which is about as easy and un-amusing as shooting fish in a barrel. He also elevates Kurt nearly presenting him as a 1990s Buddy Holly, a tortured talented young musician struck down in a great rock and roll death scene. Maybe its too early to say, but Kurt Cobain was no Buddy Holly. As the end mercifully approaches, we are teased into thinking there will be a pay-off. The filmmakers have invaded an ACLU event where Love will be a presenter. After already establishing Love is not interested in protecting the First Amendment, courtesy of threatening phone messages to journalists left by her and Cobain, Broomfield has a chance to confront her on her hypocrisy. But they don't, they instead "loose the nerve" because it seems, Love sends out some sort of evil hypnotic vibe that makes even the most cynical of investigators roll over like junkie off a curb.
This film is a total waste of time, and any more ink spilled about it and its director is truly futile. If you are interested in poorly made movies about why NASA faked the moon landings, where Elvis is hiding out or how Israeli military intelligence murdered Princess Diana, then you would probably enjoy this film.
This film is a total waste of time, and any more ink spilled about it and its director is truly futile. If you are interested in poorly made movies about why NASA faked the moon landings, where Elvis is hiding out or how Israeli military intelligence murdered Princess Diana, then you would probably enjoy this film.
She-Devil
(1989)
In defense of She Devil
23 September 2001
Reading the comments for this film, two aspects appear as the concentration to the films perceived flaws. The one is a lack of sympathy for Roseanne's character, Ruth. The other is a lack of appreciation for Meryl Streep's performance. Having watched this film many times since it's release, I think I can safely dispute this argument.
This film certainly I feel has all the markings of a cult favorite. It's dark humor, over charged performances as well as the overall look and feel wedges it someplace between "Heathers" and "Ruthless People". More on the nuances that I feel set this film apart from others later, but lets first deal with the Roseann/Streep problem.
Quite frankly, I see no problem. Meryl Streep's Mary Fisher is one of the screens funniest inventions. It seems quite clear to me that she enjoyed playing this role because there is no other way such a wonderful performance could have been created. On a number of occasions, there are lengthy shots with no change of camera where she drives through a range of hilarious emotions. How she handles a scene involving a dog licking her feet while she awakes is tremendous. I feel it is one of her strongest performances; she never turns it off, and always delivers it in the correct dosage.
The issue with Roseanne's character, Ruth, is she is seen as manipulative, uncaring, a monster hell bent on revenge. Ruth, like everything else in this picture is a caricature. This is very much the sort of role we would expect from Roseanne, the domestic goddess taking it all a step further. True, she does wallow in a mean spirited negativity, but it results in a positive outcome for nearly all involved. She takes control of her life and liberates Linda Hunts Nurse Hopper as well as countless women through her Vespa Rose Employment Agency. She returns life to the geriatrics in her care at a nursing home. As a result of Ruth's revenge, Mary Fisher at last becomes recognized as the serious writer she wished to from the start. We even know that Begley's Bob Patchett gets his comeuppance, and accepts it with grace and humility.
There are dozens of touches brought here which make this a movie so enjoyable to watch. Firstly, there is the remarkable physical change in many of the characters as the story progresses. Roseanne goes from looking like a reject from a freak show to a rather zaftig Joan Collins. Linda Hunt and Sylvia Miles likewise transform, and Streep goes from a pink, frosted confection of a romance novelist, to a black turtle necked, bespectacled writer with a gift for the "post modern metaphor". A certain tone is set when the establishing shot of Mary Fisher "pink palace by the sea" reveals her initials, M F, emblazoned on the massive gate. Streep is given countless occasions to do great business for the camera, as in a scene where her complete lack of comprehension in doing laundry leads her to put half a gallon of bleach and several dryer sheets in a washing machine. Best of all, she manages to give the finger to the "serious critics" while on the Sally Jesse Raphale Show. I honestly don't feel this film is as bad as many would like one to think. If you sit back, and let it unfold as I believe it was intended to, you will find a clever picture that has just the correct amount of overarched villainy and cynicism as many of our favorite black comedies.
This film certainly I feel has all the markings of a cult favorite. It's dark humor, over charged performances as well as the overall look and feel wedges it someplace between "Heathers" and "Ruthless People". More on the nuances that I feel set this film apart from others later, but lets first deal with the Roseann/Streep problem.
Quite frankly, I see no problem. Meryl Streep's Mary Fisher is one of the screens funniest inventions. It seems quite clear to me that she enjoyed playing this role because there is no other way such a wonderful performance could have been created. On a number of occasions, there are lengthy shots with no change of camera where she drives through a range of hilarious emotions. How she handles a scene involving a dog licking her feet while she awakes is tremendous. I feel it is one of her strongest performances; she never turns it off, and always delivers it in the correct dosage.
The issue with Roseanne's character, Ruth, is she is seen as manipulative, uncaring, a monster hell bent on revenge. Ruth, like everything else in this picture is a caricature. This is very much the sort of role we would expect from Roseanne, the domestic goddess taking it all a step further. True, she does wallow in a mean spirited negativity, but it results in a positive outcome for nearly all involved. She takes control of her life and liberates Linda Hunts Nurse Hopper as well as countless women through her Vespa Rose Employment Agency. She returns life to the geriatrics in her care at a nursing home. As a result of Ruth's revenge, Mary Fisher at last becomes recognized as the serious writer she wished to from the start. We even know that Begley's Bob Patchett gets his comeuppance, and accepts it with grace and humility.
There are dozens of touches brought here which make this a movie so enjoyable to watch. Firstly, there is the remarkable physical change in many of the characters as the story progresses. Roseanne goes from looking like a reject from a freak show to a rather zaftig Joan Collins. Linda Hunt and Sylvia Miles likewise transform, and Streep goes from a pink, frosted confection of a romance novelist, to a black turtle necked, bespectacled writer with a gift for the "post modern metaphor". A certain tone is set when the establishing shot of Mary Fisher "pink palace by the sea" reveals her initials, M F, emblazoned on the massive gate. Streep is given countless occasions to do great business for the camera, as in a scene where her complete lack of comprehension in doing laundry leads her to put half a gallon of bleach and several dryer sheets in a washing machine. Best of all, she manages to give the finger to the "serious critics" while on the Sally Jesse Raphale Show. I honestly don't feel this film is as bad as many would like one to think. If you sit back, and let it unfold as I believe it was intended to, you will find a clever picture that has just the correct amount of overarched villainy and cynicism as many of our favorite black comedies.
SOMETHING TO LOOK FOR the next time one watches.
23 September 2001
In director Robert Altman's hands, a movie that really only has going for it the story and it casting becomes one of the best of American film. "Deceiving to the eye" is to this film what "there's no place like home" is to another. Over the course of the nearly real time acting and many flashbacks, we see a set of characters reveal that they and their lives are not what they have been presenting for others to see. The setting and circumstances are a reunion of James Dean fans twenty years after his death in the Woolworth's of a dusty, drought riddled west Texas town. Coupled with the flashbacks, time seems to stand still on the set. It is easy to see why the characters feel the claustrophobia and need to escape the choking air of not only their dieing hometown, but indeed their lives. What makes this film so fantastic and so compelling for the viewer is with out a doubt the acting. Every one in this picture is superb; including Cher in what really is one of her very first stabs at serious acting. The genius in using the stage cast is here we see actors who have finely tuned the characters they are playing so well you are instantly and easily swept up in the drama.
SOMETHING TO LOOK FOR the next time one watches. I have seen this movie many many times and just noticed something that I feel I should share. Late in the movie there is a scene where most of the cast are laughing at Sandy Dennis's character, Mona. Cher's character, Sissy, adds to the ridicule by making a mocking impression of Mona, speaking in a nervous, stuttering and jittery manner. The impersonation could not have been to hard for Cher to pull off, as playing nervous, stuttering jittery women was Sandy Dennis's stock and trade. A close up of Mona shows a look on her face of bewilderment and hurt. Then Sandy does it; she opens her mouth and we see the tip of her tongue somewhat cover her upper row of teeth. Showing us the bottom of her tongue, she is aping what has to be the stock facial expression of Cher. Is it a coincidence? Or is it Sandy Dennis getting back at Cher for mimicking her? We will never know.
SOMETHING TO LOOK FOR the next time one watches. I have seen this movie many many times and just noticed something that I feel I should share. Late in the movie there is a scene where most of the cast are laughing at Sandy Dennis's character, Mona. Cher's character, Sissy, adds to the ridicule by making a mocking impression of Mona, speaking in a nervous, stuttering and jittery manner. The impersonation could not have been to hard for Cher to pull off, as playing nervous, stuttering jittery women was Sandy Dennis's stock and trade. A close up of Mona shows a look on her face of bewilderment and hurt. Then Sandy does it; she opens her mouth and we see the tip of her tongue somewhat cover her upper row of teeth. Showing us the bottom of her tongue, she is aping what has to be the stock facial expression of Cher. Is it a coincidence? Or is it Sandy Dennis getting back at Cher for mimicking her? We will never know.
Tell Your Friends