Change Your Image
Krusty-14
Reviews
The Cell (2000)
visually stunning and thrilling, but empty
To me, this movie is "Seven" meets "The Matrix". The visuals are amazing, reminding me of a Nine Inch Nails video, very dark and moody. High tech effects are mixed with very low-grade ones in an ingenious manner. However, the acting and plot are downright average. If you are looking for a great show and a good scare, watch this. The only disappointment is that it is a little TOO graphic, making it seem like a cheap horror B-movie. The concept, however, is brilliant, but not fleshed out enough to be convincing - another 20-30 minutes of film could have made the plot much better.
Cast Away (2000)
Weeks later, still thinking
Unlike most modern movies, this does not spoon-feed the audience its symbolisms and meanings. This is something that needs to be thought over - I am looking forward to seeing it again to iron out the details. Without being too repetitive, yes, the plane crash is excellent and very realistic. And the ending is deceptively simple. It feels like it leaves you hanging, but in reality leaves everything wide open for interpretation. Just like Tom Hank's character is faced with a myriad of possibilities, both on and off the island, so is the viewer at the conclusion of this film.
slight spoiler ahead...
The only comment I have to add seems to have been missed by every other reviewer, or else they do not consider it important. Remember the card that is read on the island...it is something like "The most beautiful thing in the world is the world itself". Given the situation on the island, the "whale encounter", and a few other minor details, I think that this comment sums up the movie...a movement away from materialism and the stress of everyday life, and onto something more meaningful.
Gladiator (2000)
Overhyped!
Can anyone say Braveheart II? While a good movie, this film does not deserve the immense hype surrounding it. The overuse of unnecessary violence also detracts from the overall merits of the movie. The plot was simplistic at best, and any avid moviegoer will be able to predict the whole movie right from the start. While Russell Crowe is talented, this is hardly his best work, contrary to what the popular media would say. Regardless, it was well done and gets 7/10.
Shichinin no samurai (1954)
Great directing does not make a great film
This movie shows some of the best directing ever done, and is a historical masterpiece for that reason, and that reason alone. Seven Samurai is not very relevant to the modern world, especially in America. Very little is done to develop characters and themes. At best, this is a simple story which was stretched out to 3 1/2 hours.
I do agree that the directing and cinematography were groundbreaking and very ahead of their time. I'm sure that the dialogue lost quite a bit of meaning and complexity in translation. The subtitles are written at an 8-year old's reading level, and do not do well in expressing emotion or meaning. There are other cultural barriers which will prevent the average viewer from fully grasping the plot.
The characters are, at best, underdeveloped. It is quite possible to go through the whole movie without even knowing the main characters' names, let alone the intricacies of their personality. However, you will certainly see the influence this film had on today's directing. Overall, I give it a 7/10...but I would probably give a better rating to the shortened version.
Man on the Moon (1999)
Was this a film or a documentary?
There are a couple of things that distinguishes a film from a documentary. One of the most important is building a unifying theme throughout the movie, telling a story, rather than just reiterating historical events. This movie was mostly just a replay of the real-life exploits of Andy Kaufman, with very little attention given to the behind-the-scenes action or, more importantly, motivation behind the events. Carrey does a great impression of Kaufman, but no effort is given in making Kaufman a complete character.
I could have rented a "best of" Kaufman tape and gotten the same effect as this film. In fact, the real Kaufman would have been much funnier. This was like reading a biography written by the subject's biggest fan...a skewed effort attempting to show how great Kaufman was. Unfortunately, we already knew how much of a comic genius Andy was...he showed us himself. There is no reason to watch imitators attempt to replay his shining moments. Andy left his own legacy, and I suggest everyone relive it by watching the master himself.
Final Destination (2000)
Plotless and gruesome...is this the new "Friday the 13th"?
Even though most teenie-boppers will disagree with me, this is among the biggest wastes of money I've seen. The effects are fairly good, but this is basically "Faces of Death" with a plot (actually, not much of a plot). It seems that if you cheat death, it will come back to kill you in only the most gruesome and creative way...what ever happened to the old quick and lethal heart attack? ...must be out of fashion these days. Why does death feel a need to "cover its tracks" and make these deaths look like accidents?
Not just any accidents, but the bloodiest, most complex accidents ever imagined. And where did the Candyman come from? That had to be one of the most bizarre and pointless cameos ever. The effects and creative killings were all that made this film watchable. I won't even get into the acting on this one.
My rating: 4
Scream 3 (2000)
Thank god it's finally over
Let me start by saying that i loved Scream (the original) and OWN all the Nightmare on Elm Street movies. That said...
The REAL "rules" of horror trilogies
1. Most of the movie will be spent reminding us of past characters and actions, and basically just recapping movies we have already seen, thus wasting our time instead of adding something to the storyline.
2.The stars, once considered talented and promising, will have receded into utterly terrible actors (Neve Campbell, David Arquette), or will sport a new look that is absolutely ugly and ridiculous (Courtney Cox-Arquette).
3. The lack of a true plot will be obscured by unnecessary profanity (basically every line of script) and not-so-funny humor in an attempt to make an otherwise boring movie entertaining. Also, by trying to obscure the lines between fantasy and reality, the writers must make the plot into a muddy and indecipherable mess that even Einstein couldn't figure out.
4. The plot will just rehash previous plots (Scream 1 and 2) or even plots from other series (Wes' New Nightmare). In addition, the ending must be so out of the blue, that nobody could have even imagined it, no matter how closely he watched the movie.
5. Pop-culture icons must make distinct and pointless cameos to increase the "entertainment value".
6. Innovations (like the phone call, voice disguising, and the scary mask and knife) will be merely imitated. No creativity should be put into the new film.
7.Wes Craven will take a once-brilliant idea and run it into the ground until it makes us sick with disgust (a la the Nightmare series).
THE BOTTOM LINE: This trilogy should have stopped at a single movie. Scream 3 became what the original sought to ridicule. I can't believe I sat through this entire movie. Wes, how could you do this to us?
Stir of Echoes (1999)
Visually thrilling, sickeningly bad plot
The Good: visual effects were excellent, the first 30 minutes were actually frightening. The soundtrack was terrific, with numerous little effects added in (whispers, small noises). An atmosphere of a good ghost story was established immediately. This was by, by far, Kevin Bacon's best work yet, though hardly Oscar-worthy. The "ghost" freaked me out, big time!
The Bad: Big holes in the plot made it difficult to understand and illogical at times. Many characters popped in and out of the script with little attention paid to development (i.e. Neil - who the hell was he and what was his purpose?). In some ways, comparison to other films (Close Encounters, Sixth Sense) was justified. Supporting cast was adequate at best. The middle portion of the movie was too much narrative and not enough atmosphere. The "hypnotism" sequences were cheesy and a bit laughable.
The Ugly: ENDING SUCKED! the final half-hour made no sense whatsoever, and ruined what could have been an excellent movie. What was going on at the end made your typical soap opera look simple. A clearer ending would have done wonders for this film.
The Bottom Line: This would have gotten an 8 or 9 rating with a better ending, but I gave it a 7, based solely on terrific horror imagery and atmosphere. I didn't see this in the theatre, but if you rent it, get in on DVD ONLY!!! The digital suuround soundtrack is the best thing about this movie. I doubt it would be worth seeing in VHS.