Reviews

8 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Good 2nd-run or rental.
1 April 2004
The movie was fun, had some good humor in it. I think Duvall and Caine had a ball being non-serious; Michael Caine certainly had fun being Texan. Haley Joel Osment is 15-now and fortunately has skipped around that Macauley Culkin/Corey Haim/Corey Feldman/Todd Bridges/Jonathan Brandis minefield that is being a child actor. The movie doesn't give him much to work with, he spends the first 20 or 30 minutes of the movie with this look of perpetual hurt surprise as one indignity after another is visited upon him.

The main theme of the movie centers around Walter (Osment)'s two bachelor great-uncles. Of dubious financial wealth, Walter is pushed off on them one summer by his dingy and emotionally vacant mother. Although they aren't happy to see her, and by extention, him they are slow to warm up. Eventually they do, providing Walter with some caring and positive male role models. Between the heart-wrenching/sepia-toned crymoments are episodes highlighting both uncles' eccentricities. They spend their days on the porch sipping iced tea and taking potshots at random door-to-door salesmen. Duvall is prone to sleep-walking and beating on people 50 years his junior. Caine is the more kind of the two and tells stories that fade into cartoony flashbacks of derring-do to explain Duvall's personality.

The lion of the main title is something sold to the uncles as part of their bizarre flights of fancy. Wanting to go back to the hunting of their days wandering in Africa, they purchase an old female lion with the object of hunting and eventually stuffing it. Of course, a caring boy will not allow his family to do something so heartless so it's only a matter of time before he throws his body between the lion and his uncles' guns. Of course the scene isn't carried off exactly like that and that is one of the selling points of "Secondhand Lions".

The movie doesn't rely on stock boy-coming-of-age scenes. Although it's strung together in a slightly disjointed manner, it doesn't prevent you from enjoying the moments when the three are together. Osment has always been able to act and he brings off the ho-hum dialog with practiced ease. If there is any complaint with the movie, it's with the editing and the choice of where actors speak/how they do it that can be anyone's decision (actors, producer, director, director of photography). The movie is also something you won't be afraid to take kids to, or watch with.

The ending of "Secondhand Lions" takes about 15 minutes to wind up, you keep thinking that it was added on to tie up the loose ends. Since the ending of the movie was re-shot (at considerable expense) to appease the preview audience that reviewed it; you can forgive some choices in editing, acting and the general end of the story. It's interesting to note that, right about the same time the movie was released, Berke Breathed (who provided the cartoons you see in the movies) commented on how he enjoyed drawing comics because they weren't subject to the vagaries of the test audience, or producer or MPAA.

Should you see it? Absolutely. Should you buy it? Rent it first.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Donnie Darko (2001)
Ummmm...
21 February 2004
I just spent two hours waiting for the moment in the movie where everything comes together and all makes sense. Tragically, this didn't happen and I finished Donnie Darko wishing that I could also travel in time and get my two hours back. The smaller elements of the movie, suburban private schools and their obscure teaching models as well as the dangers of local celebrity were interesting. The primary focus of this movie really boiled down to two possibilities: Donnie Darko is either crazy or he isn't. When the movie finally got around to showing what it thought was true, my patience had ended. It was neat that both Gyllenhaal kids together; nothing I've seen so far recommends Maggie to me as an actress to watch.

Like Catcher in the Rye, the story of Donnie Darko will appeal to the darker sensibilties of the American teenager. However, it didn't ring true to me and just reminded me of why it's such a bad idea to over-medicate your kids. As a side point, if I ever spoke to my mother like Donnie did to his mother, she would have slapped the teeth out of my head.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sneakers (1992)
A hacker classic.
22 October 2003
Sneakers is still fun to watch after 12 years and it was a great look at the time in which it was made. 12 years ago, the Cold War just ended and nobody was really sure how things were going to shape up geopolitically. Sneakers captured that mood perfectly and kept things tense with the soundtrack, locations and set work.

It's got the best balance of technical accuracy verses ease of viewing that I've ever seen on film. Not too many cartoon-like computer interfaces but no staring for minutes at a time at command line interfaces. Sneakers also gets points for being in the Bay Area and traveling among places that I visit every day (Hills Brother Coffee Building for the 'box drop' and the Dumbarton Bridge - for starters). Actors have fun with their roles although it's obvious that Sidney Poitier, Robert Redford, Ben Kingsley and James Earl Jones are not delivering their A-Game. It doesn't matter, it doesn't make it any less fun to watch. I like Phil Alden Robinson's camera movements; don't forget to look for the long, low slide across the Scrabble pieces right in a pivotal moment of the plot.

The movie still retains some relevance today. Ben Kingsley offers that gem " world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information. What we see and hear, how we work, what we think... it's all about the information!" gains some credibility especially in the face of the post-9/11 news reporting on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News. Trash-diving is still a viable option to gain information on your opponent and social engineering will always work to help you gain some information.

Sneakers is still one of the best mainstream treatments on the subject of hacking. Watch, learn, enjoy.
81 out of 94 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Uhh...hmmm...
15 September 2003
How can I put this mildly? I didn't enjoy this movie. That isn't to say I don't enjoy most Ridley Scott films or even to say that I don't enjoy watching Nicholas Cage but this attempt to cover 'The Sting''s ground was missing that certain something. I guess I went into the movie with one expectation of seeing a movie show you how a con works and that by itself is always entertaining. But this movie seemed to be trying to play that angle while showing a portrait of a man who has made mistakes and is now trying to rebuild his relationship with his daughter. I didn't care about the characters and I sure didn't care about the con itself, which was complex and poorly worked. Scott didn't seem to be too concerned with the reality and believeablity of the crime world he was attempting to portray; the scheme his characters used to bilk the old folks with was more engaging and interesting than the one used at the climax of the movie.

To begin with, I kept hearing about how Nicholas Cage does a great character study with someone suffering from OCD. However, there's nothing here that you haven't seen Jack Nicholson do and do better in 'As Good as it Gets'. I had to fight the urge to shout as much during film. And then there was Alisa Lohman as Cage's daughter. There are no suprises in this movie - she's the rebel with the heart of gold, just like the old man. See, we know this because when she first appears in the movie, she's riding a skateboard and it seems like we're expected to know how rebellious and Grrl-power-ey chicks on decks are.

I don't take this as a definitive Ridley Scott film, it's just a movie. Something to painlessly seperate you from your $9.25 and make you forget your troubles for a couple of hours. If you want to see him do an epic, watch 'Gladiator'. If you want to see him do sci-fi, watch 'Blade Runner' and 'Alien'. If you want to see Ridley Scott do a summer movie, watch 'Matchstick Men'.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Magical World of Disney: Ask Max (1986)
Season 31, Episode 5
Chunk....nooo!!!!
20 June 2003
Holy crap, did this thing stink. Tragically, the most famous people involved were Jeff Cohen (Chunk from The Goonies) and Ray Walston (Mr. Hand from Fast Times at Ridgemont High). I remember watching this on ABC as part of the Disney Sunday Night movie they used to show before the real movie at nine. No plot to spoil, except for the fact that Chun...er, Max kept inventing these amazing things yet still couldn't find popularity at school. The one really memorable scene puts him flying over the goal posts of his school football field in his invented flying bicycle. Double-photography was never a good thing. In typical Disney fashion, Max gets his wish and everybody walks off into the sunset of the happy Disney world where every ending is a happy one. This isn't even a guilty pleasure-I'd use this movie to punish a kid who misbehaved.

With apologies to Jeff and Ray.
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Heat (1995)
Best crime drama since Bullitt.
6 April 2003
You've got to hand it to Michael Mann. Anyone who can make LA look as good as he does in Heat has got some aces up his sleeve. Throughout this movie LA appears the futuristic wonderland everyone seems to think it is-even the greasy spoons have something extra. The reason I mention this is after watching every Quentin Tarantino film and any other recent film taking place in LA, Heat makes Los Angeles an interesting place to watch.

But that's not the best part about this film.

The best part about this movie is that it is real. Let me say that again - it is REEEAAAALLL. Get it? No greenscreens where the heroes are diving down mountains ahead of avalanches and one guy carrying a .38 snubby can hit opponents blazing away with AK-47's. At all points you can see how the makers took pains to show the characters doing it just like the real bad guys would. That probably makes it difficult for the majority of movie-goers who are used to being force-fed process shots and can still allow themselves to be amazed when Bruce Willis dives out a 15-story window running faster than an explosion while still managing to land on an awning he didn't even know was there. It also makes all of us sigh a little more when we see Pearl Harbor being sold for $30 and a gem like Heat getting stuck in the $15 bargain basement section.

The reality of the movie makes for some slow moments but when the action gets rolling, you'll be glad you waited. Not only is it first-rate, you don't stand a chance of knowing what's going on without watching the quote-unquote slow parts. Give the movie a chance and it'll never make you sorry. Pacino and Deniro have a ball playing the lead men on opposite teams. It's clear that both are playing characters on opposite sides of the game that give and expect no quarter. Sizemore and Kilmer are excellent as supporting members of the bad guy crew. Ashley Judd and Diane Venora are also excellent as the unhappy love interests. Six major plots in this movie weave seamlessly and Mann knows how to move from one to the other to keep you riveted.

The music reminds you of Mann's days with Miami Vice; ultra-modern yet understated and elegant. The sound editing is appropriate; when you have a dozen different types of weapons all being fired simultaneously, you appreciate not having to listen yet again to a foleyed-in Hollywood "pow!" A full metric tonne of supporting actors all lend their little bits (Watch Hank Azaria as the mouthy Vegas paramour-Pacino has fun slapping him down to size). The ending does seem to a drag a little in my opinion-reminding us a little of the mexican standoff in "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly". After a while you're ready to scream "Shoot already!"

Heat is hands-down the best LA crime drama to come out in a long, long while and along with LA Confidential, stands to be one of the best of all time.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Attack of the Groans
25 February 2003
I should warn you now that I'm spoiling a truckload of the plot. If you have already seen it, it won't matter. If you haven't, you shouldn't and it still won't matter. After we finished watching the movie, we adjourned to the next-door rib place for a late dinner. Waiting for our drinks, the wife looks at me straight in the eye and says those three little words: `That movie sucked!'

Pause with me a moment. She, of the faithful, who could never say anything bad about Star Wars. She, who has read and owns every single Star Wars book ever read, who still owns her R2-D2 nightshirt from when she was four and has it framed, no less. She, who kept her stiff upper lip even in the face of Episode 1, has lost hope that Star Wars can be saved. She apologized to me saying, `I appreciate you taking me!' That was when I realized that the dream was over, not only for she and I, but also for thousands of fans that are now hanging up the lightsabers.

The utter lack of chemistry is one of the most glaring problems with this movie. It was like watching sodium refusing to bond to chloride. At first they're making eyes, then it moves to small scenes where the blocking is non-existent but the words are suggesting something. Then they're back on Naboo and standing in front of a variety of spectacular scenery. Portman wears a variety of Britney Spears-like outfits throughout the exchange. I'm not complaining, but come on. Princess Leia in combat gear and wielding a pistol was sexier, and she wasn't even trying. The scene where Leia and Han end up kissing in the Falcon's maintenance hatch was a lot hotter than that fireside chat Annikin and Amidala had. He confesses his love like he was on the high school debate team. They're facing certain death at the end of the movie, and she gets as schmaltzy and wooden as he does. Guh.

That's not the only problem. Continuity errors are springing up between the movies and the stories that have been Lucas' cash crop. The novels by Timothy Zahn tell you that Darth Vader lost his hand after failing to recruit Luke Skywalker. The movies would have you believe that he lost his arm fighting Count Dooku. Which is it? This installment also makes a huge deal out of the fact that Jedi aren't supposed to love or marry. In the second Zahn series, Luke asks Mara Jade to marry him. They eventually do and have children. No one seems to have a problem with this, until now. Now, Jedi are supposed to live as loveless monks. Given the current state of affairs in the religious world, is forbidding the `clergy' of your faith from marriage really the best policy? How are Jedi born then? Do they all spring about through spontaneous combustion? If Leia also has the ability to become a Jedi, why is she married to Han Solo? The story doesn't stay true to the overall picture and is cannibalizing other stories in the process.

I also have a problem with the concept that less than twenty people are the controlling influence of the universe. The stories always revolve around the Skywalker clan and a handful of others and how they always manage to be at the center of universe-size conflict. To my knowledge, World War II wasn't fought single-handedly by FDR, Hitler and Churchill. Why does Lucas assume that his characters are the only ones to save the day? Zahn recognizes this to some extent and introduces new characters to us: Thrawn, Karrde, Jade and the Noghri to name a few. Lucas makes no move to do the same and this is another indication that his story-writing ability is running out of steam.

All in all I feel an enormous sense of betrayal, watching this and Episode 1. So much of my time, imagination and emotional energy have been invested in this just to have it fall flat. The wife and I half-jokingly discussed filing a class action suit against Lucasfilm for building our hopes up. Cinematography aside, fight scenes aside, this movie wasn't worth the $9 and two and a half hours I spent. Tragically, there are going to be hangers-on that help this crap perpetuate itself. The ones who say `Who cares? It's Star Wars!' By not coming out and saying `hey, we deserve better', Lucas won't be moved to improve his movies. The word is already out that he's going to add new scenes featuring Natalie Portman to Return of the Jedi so that the story makes more sense. That, in itself, is an admission of defeat. He could have also done himself a huge favor by bringing in some of the other contributing writers and having one or two eyeball the dialogue. I always thought Timothy Zahn had a great bead on the characters, their motivation, even how they talked with one another. Would it be so wrong to ask him for some help in sketching out the flow of the conversations? When he had the characters crack a joke, it got a smile or a chuckle out of me. That's a step in the right direction compared to this monstrosity.

Star Wars fans, you deserve better. Put the toys down and step away from the edge. Lucas is not interested in making great movies, he's interested in making money. He's got enough of mine as it is. Other people are interested in filling the public's need for science fiction stories and movies with interesting storylines and thoughtful dialogue. We are enough without the movies, we are interesting and worthy of entertainment that doesn't insult our intelligence. It's time to hit Lucas where it hurts the most: in his wallet.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Eastbound and Down!
29 December 2002
How can you not love a movie that even Alfred Hitchcock called 'a guilty pleasure'? Smokey and the Bandit may not be Burt Reynolds, Sally Fields or Jackie Gleason's best movie - but it certainly will be one that they will be remembered for. The plot breakdown is fairly simple: Burt Reynolds and Jerry Reed are trucking partners that are bet they can't deliver 400 cases of beer across two states in under 24 hours. Since that type of delivery is illegal (and incidentally, so is how Jerry Reed drives) Burt Reynolds distracts the "Smokies" by breaking every traffic law in sight with his '76 Trans Am. Add to that Sally Field as the runaway bride who tags along and Jackie Gleason as the jilted-father-in-law/'Smokey' and you can see why this movie was second-highest grossing movie in 1977 (beaten out by Star Wars).

This is not an intelligent movie. There are no Oscar-caliber performances and no brilliant direction. It doesn't change the fact that Smokey and the Bandit remains fun to watch and the lines are still funny after the fifth time you've seen it or the fifteenth. The car chases are filmed well; you'll notice that the car crashes are surpassed only a few years later by John Landis' The Blues Brothers.

Smokey and the Bandit is one of the best Southern Rock/muscle car/beer and pizza movies you can rent or catch on TBS (although you miss most of Jackie Gleason's dialogue if you catch it on cable.) Check it out!
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed