quin1974 Reviews

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

Fantastic!!!

[10/10 · 18 May 2002]

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS

First of all, let me say that I was extremely sceptical after seeing the several trailers posted on the internet. I felt that Lucas was repeating himself storywise and have stated so in several BBS's all over the internet. This scepticism was of course fueled by the in many ways severely flawed Ep1:TPM. I have been a Star Wars fan from the very first hour and dreaded this next installment.

But.. and here comes an enormous BUT...

I was wrong, I apologize to George and his entire crew and cast for losing faith in them. Episode 2 made may jaw drop almost all the way through. Right from the start this rollercoaster ride rolls at a breathtaking speed through several interwoven storylines, four planets, extremely well crafted special effects, a love-story that is more credible than I thought Lucas was able to write and a big load of intrigue, fun, humor, excitement, anger and the list goes on.

Hayden is excellent and extremely dark (I say two words: Tusken Camp), his eyes and words reflect Vader in a human form. Natalie is good as always as the ever beautiful Padmé, she looks more and more like her daughter every day (that was weird saying that). Ewan takes a turn for the better in this flick by making Obi-Wan the more responsible Jedi, in a way he takes the role of Liam, he is more and more becoming the quiet hermit we see in Ep4:ANH. And then there is the rest of the excellent supporting cast: Christopher Lee as Lord Tyranus, Ian McDiarmid as Palpatine (scheming as ever), Jimmy Smits as the future foster father of Leia and of course Samuel Jackson as the ass-kicking Jedi Mace Windu. Oh and let's not forget the awesome new version of Yoda, he is absolute too ass-kicking (the whole theatre went up in cheers when he grapped his lightsaber!!!)

Is there a downside to this installment? Yes, sure there is. The dialogues are not always as solid as they should be, as are the acting performances. Some of the blending of life-action and cgi wasn't all that good. But in the end I was extremely relieved when I left the theatre.

Thank you George for bringing us back into the universe that is so dear to so many people. Despite its flaws, this is what Star Wars is about, fun movie viewing. Me and my friends were left with so many questions after the first viewing (e.g. why did Qui-Gon not disappear at the end of Ep1:TPM, it seems he wasn't all that benevolent as we thought he was.) Aargh now we have to wait another three years!!!!!!

I'd give it a 9.9, so that becomes a 10 when you round up.

Cheers George, thanks and don't disappoint us with Ep3:???.

Dracula 2000 (2000)

Horrible

[2/10 · 7 June 2001]

Sneak preview; June 5, 2001.

I heard it was gonna be a Wes Craven movie called Dracula 2000, that made the hairs in my neck stand up in fear for another crap movie, but I gave Wes the benefit of the doubt, since he has made some good flicks in the past. When the credits came on screen I was very disappointed to see that it wasn't a Craven film at all. Some guy called Patrick Lussier wrote and directed it. He is the man behind such non-classics as Propechy 3 and uuuuuuuuummm nothing else. He was also Craven's in-house editor for amongst other the Scream movies.

But unfortunately non of the talent Wes Craven has has rubbed off on Lussier. Dracula 2000 (released in Holland on June 14 2001!) is an extremely inferior product. In almost all departments where this movie could be awful, it really is awful (which is an accomplishment in itself). The script is so stupid and ripped off of several other movies that is isn't even funny any more, it was like watching a Zucker/Abrahams/Zucker comedy trying to spot all the movies that had been used to fabricate this piece of shite. I can't begin to recollect which they were, but you'll see what I mean when you see this movie.

The acting is bad to start with. The only one doing a decent job is Cristopher Plummer, considering the stuff he is given to work with. The rest I will not get into, it hurts too much.

One last point before I sign off: why is it that when a corporate sponsor is involved in a movie like this it has to be displayed so blatantly. It would have been enough if the actors just shouted: "VIRGIN VIRGIN VIRGIN VIRGIN VIRGIN" all movie long, shameful to say the least.

Horrible, skip, go see a good movie, or go see "Dude, Where's My Car?" at least you will get some classy stuff in your head.

2/10

The Mummy (1932)

Karloff was so cool

[9/10 · 9 March 2001]

In light of the release of the 1999 Mummy movie I was drawn to see the original to see if it was really that much better that the new one. Since the new one sucked tremendously, not much could go wrong in that department. This movie is a much more heartfelt movie that the new one wanted to be. The story of the Mummy coming back to life when it is excavated in Egypt by some English treasure hunters/scientists is the beginning of a much more humane story than I expected.

Imhotep the Mummy (Karloff) has been buried alive 2700 years ago in punishment for trying to bring his dead love back from the dead. His plans are thwarted and he is sentenced to eternal punishment. When he is dug up early in the 20th century he is awakened from his curse and starts to look for a way to again try to bring back his love from the dead. Ten years later he resurfaces in the Cairo museum and manages to direct the English toward the tomb of his long lost love. They dig her up and put her on display in the museum. He finds a likeness for his love in the lovely figure of Zita Johann. Her life is now very much in danger...

As I said before the story of the long lost love and the will to sacrifice a lot for this love is the central theme for this movie. It is not the scares or the action that make this the classic it is, it is the story that makes it. That is what the new 1999 version was severely lacking.

The acting was good alround. Karloff is as cool as ever and sort of reprises his Frankenstein which would go on to make him a movie legend. But never the less seeing the mummy come to life is still a great sight to see. Johann is good as the "love" interest of Karloff and Frank Whemple, one of the English.

The production values are tremendous. The sets are very elaborate and big. The outdoor sets are very well dressed. The lighting on all the scenes is fantastic, in particular the haunting close-up of Karloff when he tries to hypnotize a victim, fantastic. Black and white still rules.

9/10

Akira (1988)

Compelling, One of Otomo's best stories

[9/10 · 6 March 2001]

Note: when I write this I am already an avid fan for several years of Otomo's work. I just didn't get around to write a review on Akira.

In the past 13 years I have watched Akira numerous times, and I still think this is one of the best Animes out there. But, all these times I have watched it one the small screen, VCR was the only way to see this. Until last night. I was able to see this masterpiece on the big screen at one of my local arthouses, it was a one-time screening, so the theater was packed with fans. Great atmosphere. This movie blew me away as if I had never seen it before. The sheer power of the imagery and the sound effects and the music coming at you through the screen and the speakers was tremendous.

Although, regrettably, the print was the dubbed version, making it a little easier to follow, I still prefer the original subtitled version. Thankfully I have this one on tape. Enough ranting about the screening, on to the movie.

Still incredible. I am also an avid fan of Ghost In The Shell (by Shirow, the other great Japanese artist) and I thought Ghost had surpassed Akira in brilliance. I have to take that back, there are on the same level entirely. Both of them are very, very cool. Akira displays a deep understanding of the human psyche and the balance that we all have to achieve to keep ourselves in line. Tetsuo is not able to do this, he has been bullied all his life and being orphaned at an early age this was not easy on him. He always saw Kaneda as his big brother and looked up to him and worshiped him in a way because Kaneda was able to contain his inner balance. When through some strange encounter with an experiment gone wrong, Tetsuo isn't able to contain his powers anymore and loses himself in the labyrinth of his brain. He gets visions of someone called Akira and has to find this Akira to restore his own self.

This all seems very complex, and it is. This is just the tip of the iceberg that is Akira. There are numerous subplots and motives and themes as only Otomo can write them. Otomo has displayed this before in the terribly complex story Domu and Mother Sarah (great comic stuff, find and read it). The complexity of the story is often what puts people off at the end of this movie. They seem to like the animation, the motorcycle scenes in particular, but the story seems to elude them at the very end. To these people I would like to say: go see it again, and again, and again. Or even better, go see if you can get your hands on the comic book.

As you can see I am not very fond of saying something bad about Akira and Otomo, but still there are some things that bothered me when I viewed this on the big screen. It had never really occurred to me how awful this movie is sometimes cut together. At times the scene you are watching is just picking up the pace and then it is cut off to dissolve to another scene. This was something that could have gotten a little more attention from Otomo. This is all probably because he had to make sacrifices toward the length of the movie and just didn't seem to get the movie right without the remaining cut pieces. Or at least, that is what I hope is the reason.

Well, this is enough from me at this time. I am certainly looking forward to a theatrical re-release of this with a completely enhanced soundtrack and visual quality (please Katsuhiro, make it happen), and the same goes for Ghost, of course.

9/10

PS. my review of Ghost In The Shell is also somewhere here on IMDb.

Amsterdamned (1988)

The muddy, toxic canals of Amsterdamned

[5 March 2001]

When this movie was first released in theaters, back in 1986, it got quite a buzz and it was certainly a winner at the box office. I went to see this picture back then and, I must say, was scared s***less at the end. I was 12 at the time and not used to seeing stuff like that on the big screen, I had nightmares the following several nights. The severed heads, the dangling body on the bridge, to name but a few instances, made an enormous impact on me.

Now, when you think I am going to praise this movie alround, you are wrong. See, I was twelve and was not in any way educated in film arts. Nowadays, my knowledge in the film department has quite significantly improved and when I now watch this movie it certainly lacks a lot.

As is normal in Dutch movies, it seems, in particular the sound editing is dreadful. I do not know where this constant deficiency comes from, but it is omnipresent in just about every movie that is released from Holland. The acting is not all that great, but given the material that the cast and crew were presented with, it is still a pretty nice job. Production values are absolutely high-standard for a small country like Holland. The fact that some scenes in the boat chase were filmed in Utrecht is something that is absolutely unforgivable, but sometimes a director has to make sacrifices towards this sort of thing to make the story work. The chase scenes were absolutely riveting to say the least. Regrettably, the make-up on the villain was a little crappy when I look at it now.

Story-wise this was pretty decent. The tension was kept on a good level in the high-octane speed of situations that followed each other. Some of the photography was better than average, the stalking POV was awesome. Some scenes really stood out above the rest, for instance the girl who is resting in her little rubber boat and subsequently being sliced and diced in the middle of the Amsterdam canal, this is timeless stuff. I love it.

Overall this was a decent movie not to be viewed by the smallest among the family. The pace in the story will keep you tied to your seat. Look past its flaws and just watch this movie unprejudiced. At least it's a hell of a lot better than Maas' clunker of 1999 "Do Not Disturb".

7/10

The Dreamlife of Angels (1998)

Beautiful performances worthy of all the awards they got

[9/10 · 26 February 2001]

Innocence. This is the word that struck me as most suitable for this telling. This story about two girls living together in somebody else's house is absolutely beautiful.

The story: a backpacking girl, Isa, arrives in Lille only to find out that her place to stay is no longer there. She gets a job in a sowing factory where meets Marie. She is fired from her job and moves in with Marie in an apartment that belongs to a woman and daughter who are in a coma due to a car accident. The subsequent events will change Isa's and Marie's life forever. Relationships with men, a girl in a coma, a diary all play a part. The bonds between the two girls becomes too stressed to survive.

The two girls perform their roles to perfection. If they would have played their roles without any lines it would still be evident what they were going through, the acting in their faces told the whole story. The several awards they got were certainly deserved. The rest of the cast wasn't all that brilliant, but they didn't hinder the girls in their play.

The story is a fairly straightforward romantic telling of two girls who have to deal with all these new emotions of living together under one roof. The development of the characters is exquisite. Isa just has faith in life and takes everything as it comes. During the course of the movie she matures a lot due to her "contact" with Sandrine, the girl in a coma. In a way she has a better understanding with Sandrine than with Marie. Marie is the more naieve one of the two and believes in the good of man. She has an affair with the local playboy and she believes that this relationship is meant to last, but Isa tries to tell her otherwise. She doesn't listen because of her being blinded by love and when the truth does rear its ugly head, she is incapable of handling it, resulting in...

The substories were not all worked out very well. For example, the substory of the girl in a coma could have been better. The fact that Isa was going to fill the diary with entries I thought was very intriguing, but the script had to support two main characters some probably something had to go.

I regret to say that before I saw the movie I knew the ending was going to be shocking, so it didn't come as that big a shock (sorry if I ruined it for others). But if the ending does not leave you breathless...

9/10

Kikujiro (1999)

Takeshi's soft side

[8/10 · 20 February 2001]

Who would have expected such a quiet, sensitive movie from the master of stylized movie violence? I think nobody. Takeshi Kitano manages to display on the screen a remarkable tale of a grown-up being taught how to enjoy life by a small child.

The story starts with little Masao wondering where his mother is. He lives with his grandmother and one day he finds a photograph of his mother. He wants to go find her, but doesn't have the means to do this. Enter Kitano. A low-life crook (he seems to have knack for these characters) who used to live next to Masao's grandmother. His wife forces him to take Masao on the trip to see his mother. Kikujiro (Kitano) doesn't want to help the boy and instead takes him to the tracks and uses the boy to go gambling. After a while he decides to take the boy to see his mother after all. What follows is a sensitive character-changing tale of a man growing fond of this boy. Together they have several adventures and ultimately find the mother and what they find is not what Masao is looking for. To soften his sadness Kikujiro decides to brighten the little boy's world before returning home.

And this is where the movie goes wrong. Kitano loses touch and takes on a goofy vision. The likable bikers and the other nice man are just too gullible and are just not convincing enough. Kitano just takes these scenes too far and takes too long to portray these. This is a shame, because up until the point where Masao finds his mother this movie was beautiful, well acted, and just plain good.

The most memorable piece of dialogue must have been when at the beginning of the film Kikujiro's wife tells Kikujiro to "stop playing gangster". This is probably a joke that will go unnoticed by Kitano first-timers, but it is very much what Kitano has been trying to establish here, a different kind of Kitano movie. The most memorable scene, there are lots, but that must be the scene where Masao pays the stranger to play the mechanic doll. That scene was so moving, because it was just about the only scene where the boy smiles, lovely.

A fantastic movie, absolutely. But it is a shame that in the end it all goes down the drain. Therefor I settle for an...

8/10

Toy Story 2 (1999)

Toys with character, and so much more...

[10/10 · 20 February 2001]

I am a huge fan of the first Toy Story, I thought that movie was just brilliant, although there was something lacking, I don't know what that was, but there was something not quite complete about it. That's where the next installment comes in.

This next Story is mostly about Woody. When Andy's mother decides to get rid of Woody because his arm is "broken", he is picked up by a toy collector who recognizes him as a collector's item from way back. Woody is "kidnapped" by the collector and the rest of the toys decide to undertake an expedition to rescue him. Fairly straightforward up until now.

But that's where the movie starts to pick up the pace and with rollercoaster speed the story unfolds and with it the characters blossom. It felt like watching The Empire Strikes Back all over again after having loved Star Wars so much. The characters all seems to become these living figures with problems and worries. Woody has to come to terms with his past, Buzz has to battle himself and find out that there are loads and loads more like him, Mr. Potato Head is married now, Rex has his quest with the Buzz Lightyear video game ("My claws are too short!!!") etc etc. Even the aliens are coming to reprise their role. Too much to tell here.

But the most wonderful thing in part two are the additions. Woody's forgotten rooting-tooting wild west gang is hilarious. Jessie, in particular, is fantastic. With the voice of Joan Cusack as her backbone she becomes the one to make Woody realize that without him the gang is doomed to spent another lifetime "in storage". Her song, written by Randy Newman and sung by Sarah McLaughlin, about her former owner losing interest in her was heart-breaking. Woody's horse is the new comic-relief, and plays this part to excellence. Stinky Pete (with the voice of Kelsey "Frasier" Grammer) is wonderful in his own devious kind of way. Another "addition" to the story is Zurg, already glimpsed in the original movie in text, now he becomes "flesh and blood" and has a terrible secret to reveal to one of the other Buzzes. Wayne Knight (Newman from Seinfeld) gives just the right frantic toy-collector nerdy feel to Al, owner of the toyshop and abductor of Woody to complete his collection of Woody's gang to sell them to someone in Japan. All in all a lot of new wonderful characters that you can feast your eyes on.

The worst thing that happened to me while watching this movie was that the performances were so convincing, by the gang in particular, that I started to feel guilty about myself having toys (Star Wars) still inside the packaging. A horrible feeling crept over me, and I almost wanted to go home and rip open all the packaging and set the toys free from storage. I managed to restrain myself just in time not to ruin my valuable collection (horrible me).

I absolutely love and adore this movie, I want everybody who has a shred of human decency and love in their body to go out and rent this gem (although it is mandatory that you watch the first to set up the characters). A must see for everybody.

10/10

PS. Please stay for the credits, these are hilarious. To think Pixar went out of their way to make bloopers is fantastic (or buy the DVD for full screen bloopers).

Breakdown (I) (1997)

Kurt Hitchcock

[8/10 · 20 February 2001]

In the wonderful tradition of Alfred Hitchcock this movie is paced so well that it will keep you bolted to your chair until the last minute. Kurt Russell plays a husband who gets on the wrong side of a group of hillbilly rednecks with a very disturbing plan.

While on a drive to Los Angeles to begin their new lives, Russel and Quinlan drive along the sandy roads of America's deserts and they almost crash into a truck pulling into the road. This is the beginning of a series of events in which Quinlan is kidnapped, Russell hunted down and shot at and lots more. This sounds trivial and predictable, and in a way it is. But Mostow manages to pace the story so well, that you are constantly on the edge of your seat waiting for what happens next and how the heck Russell is going to get himself out of the next situation. This makes up for some of the flaws that the movie has.

Kurt Russell is not one to deliver top-notch acting performances, he is the reason I waited so long to see this movie. I wouldn't believe that he could carry this movie on his own. But he does, he is excellent as the city slicker who is blackmailed to get his wife back. He portrays him and his transformation into the man who takes control fine. Way above my expectations. Quinlan, although her role is fairly small, delivers the goods as the abducted wife. She makes us root for Russell to get her back. The baddies are all too believable. They are the bunch of rednecks you wouldn't want to meet in the first place, but you probably have when you have been driving across America. It's a scary thought that when you are driving in an expensive car you automatically become a target for folks like these, cold chills down my spine.

This certainly is up there in my chiller top ten. It is well acted, cleverly written, although not very original. The finale will leave you breathless, I am sure.

8/10

Altered States (1980)

Intriguing, but just too fuzzy

[7/10 · 19 February 2001]

The fact that maybe subconsciously we still have remnants of earlier versions of ourselves is very intriguing, to say the least. What would happen if we would descent into a hallucinatory state that enables us to access these earlier versions and let them surface and take over our current status of human being?

This is what drives Professor Eddie Jessup (William Hurt) to undertake a series of experiments with an ancient drug he acquires from an Indian tribe. The results of his experiments are more than he could have hoped for. Before long he starts hallucinating during the hours out of the experiments and during brief periods of time after the experiments he is transformed to these earlier versions of humankind, even all the way back to the primordial ooze.

Unfortunately this side of the story enters the movie too late. The first 45 minutes we are watching Jessup rant and rave about religion and philosophy like there is no tomorrow, but unfortunately this is not as compelling as the second part of the story. When Jessup goes into one of his first hallucinatory states, the viewer is bombarded with a visual and sound explosion. The visuals are of such a level that they can be explained in any number of ways, which hinders the movie. Some scenes just take way too long (sandfigures withering away).

The acting is decent. Hurt delivers a potent performance of the man who undergoes all these experiments. His convincing portrayal is what upholds the movie. His wife Emily (Blair Brown) must love him very much, because she endures Hurt's atrocious personality to the end in the name of love. The sceptic Mason (Charles Haid) was just too much, he resisted the experiments with such fervor that it became laughable and certainly not believable, his performance would have benefited from a more subtle approach.

When I said that the story about halfway turns for the good, I didn't mean that it ended good as well. On the contrary, all the credit that was built with the change in story halfway was thrown away in the last fews minutes when the conclusion all becomes muddled and incomprehensible, and that was a shame.

The special effects were nice enough to see, but not remarkable. The Oscar nomination for Sound Editing was absolutely deserved. Technically there is not a lot wrong with this movie. It is just the story that could have gotten a little more work.

7/10

Mighty Joe Young (1998)

Endearing movie, way better than expected

[9/10 · 12 February 2001]

King Kong must be one of the greatest animals ever to grace to silver screen, he sure is the biggest primate to do this. But there is a good runner up: Joe. Once before filmed in 1956 also as `Mighty Joe Young', this story of a gorilla with a defect in his genes which causes him to grow out of proportions into a 2000 lbs primate, is a great one.

The story begins with little Jill Young and her mother as they are in the jungle observing a group of gorilla's. Little Jill instantly bonds with Little Joe, a baby gorilla. At night the group of gorilla's is attacked by poachers and Jill and her mother go out there to the jungle to protect them. To no avail, because in the end both Jill's and Joe's mother are killed. Twelve years later Jill (Theron) is still with Joe and Joe has grown into this enormous gorilla weighing over 2000 lbs. Paxton comes to the jungle to investigate a myth of a giant primate protecting the area of the mountain where Joe lives. Joe and Paxton meet, poachers come to hunt him down and Paxton and Jill decide to take Joe to a preserve in California so he can have a more quiet life. But danger is not gone, even in California old enemies come to hunt him down, and Joe ultimately has to undertake a very brave action...

This is the outline of a very well crafted piece of cinema, family entertainment at its best. The script is very well written, the characters are likable and convincing. You have the hero and the heroine, the villain and luckily the moronic sidekicks have been left at home this time. Joe is a lovely character, although a lot of him has been done with CGI, he is still very convincing. A lot of work has gone into creating the right facial expressions to give him a human touch. The story unfolds at rollercoaster speed, never lets off steam and constantly plunges the audiences into new surprises and endearing situations.

Ron Underwood did a great job at recreating this story on screen. The performances are way above average, even Theron is good for once. Paxton is his Paxton self. The art direction is fine as well. The sets are well designed, if somewhat "Disney" at times. The special effects were awesome and state-of-the-art. Although some of the scenes could be recognized as being CGI, this was not very bothersome, there have been worse attempts at this genre.

A lovely picture for the family, if maybe not for the smallest of the family, some of the scenes can be quite frightening for some. One must be a very big cynical grown-up not be moved by the final scenes at the fairground.

9/10

Hamlet (1996)

Riveting, although not for all tastes

[9/10 · 12 February 2001]

1. I think it was a treat to for once see and hear the complete unabridged text as it was meant by the most famous bard in the world.

2. The enormous amount of talent portraying the famous characters, Branagh as Hamlet (with bleached hair), Winslet as Ophelia (portraying her as if she is a veteran stage performer) for starters are absolutely enormous in their roles. The rest of the principal and supporting cast have transcended their past careers and have put in all of their best efforts to complete this as the masterpiece it has ultimately become. Combine this with point 1 and you get a very good movie.

Combine 1 and 2 with the brilliant set building and cinematography and what do you get? A Kenneth Branagh adaptation of a Shakespeare play. As we have seen before with Much Ado About Nothing and Henry V this man knows Shakespeare by heart and is not afraid to give his own version of the tales and twists in these plays. In this version of Hamlet he portrays Hamlet as a bitter, egotistical self-absorbed person who is absolutely certain of his step-father's guilt and therefor feigns his own insanity which causes him to be blind to suffering he puts the people around him through. In the original piece as written by W.S. Hamlet is much more insecure. I don't say this is a bad thing, because as we have seen in the past the plays by W.S. are very much subject to interpretation and view (i.e. Romeo + Juliet, 1996), Branagh gave a very grim edge to the character which I liked.

The fact the complete text, except for a few words altered, was used in chronological order, was a very bold step. Meaning that now the movie amounted to about 242 minutes, but if you watch this on your VCR in parts (2 or 3) you will be able to do it. Don't let the length discourage you. This is really worth your while.

The set building was enormous, creating this 18th century castle in Denmark (not actually in Denmark) was fabulous as were the sets outside on the grounds of the castle. Ophelia's burial scene was very well executed and gave the story the amount of depth and understanding that one needs when you are not too familiar with the story which unfolds in such glamour in front of one's eyes.

Truly a must for Shakespeare fans and a definite challenge for the people who are not too familiar with the bard's work. See this and be amazed (I don't condemn you if you don't manage to finish it). Repeated viewing is certainly mandatory with this masterpiece.

9/10

Last Embrace (1979)

Fine Hitchcock-like suspense thriller

[8/10 · 12 February 2001]

This is a movie in the better Hitchcock tradition. The story about a man whose wife is assassinated and believes he is next on the list, is one of the better thrillers I have seen in the past few years.

The story was cleverly written, never really lulling into nothingness. The idea about this girl avenging her mother's demise as a hooker was interesting. And the finale was spectacular in the surroundings of Niagara Falls.

Jonathan Demme did a good job directing this suspense thriller. Although it will never be the classic Silence of the Lambs, or Philadelphia for that matter when it comes to drama and suspense, it is still an enjoyable ride into frenzy and despair.

Roy Scheider delivers an excellent performance as the hunted Harry Hannan, as does Janet Margolin as the antagonist and love-interest of Scheider. Supporting cast is OK.

In the end, I was not entirely impressed, but it entertained me enough to keep me watching. A taut, sexy thriller that is underrated.

8/10

Jason and the Argonauts (1963)

Fantastic Adventure Movie

[9/10 · 12 February 2001]

The myths from the Ancient Greek society have inspired this story of a young man searching for the Golden Fleece. Jason is the son of a slain king and is destined to defeat the ruling king. To defeat the king he must find this Golden Fleece at the end of the world. He assembles a small band of men, the Argonauts, to go on this journey with him. Along the way they encounter several treacherous situations, from raging seas to giant Bronze statues.

The script is cleverly written and holds something for everybody. Although the story sometimes lacks some speed, it is still a joy to watch this movie. The characterization is well done, Jason is a daring young chap, who is determined to avenge his father's death. Hercules is for once portrayed as a strong, potent man who has supernatural powers. Unfortunately the female characters were a bit left behind in this work of testosterone, Medea makes no impact as the love-interest of Jason and her choice between serving her country or going for Jason is severely underlighted, but in the end you wouldn't really care anyway. Jason gets the fleece and frees his people with a little help from his friends, the Gods. Zeus'character is taut as ever, a fine performance there. Heda is played fine as well. After all they are gods.

The real star of this movie are the special effects. Ray Harryhausen is a God when it comes to stop-motion animation. He has been an influence on the greatest in the business, like Dennis Muren, Phil Tippett, and numerous other heavy-weights. His work in this film ranges from a seven-headed hydra to flying evil harpies to an enormous bronze statue and to top it all off a sequence of several minutes with 7 (!) skeletons battling 3 fighters!

Let's discuss them: the hydra was not very impressive to see at first, it just kind of stand there wiggling its heads around and sometimes snaps at Jason. Jason never really hits the hydra, either. So this must be the least exciting piece of the movie. But when you look closer this is one magnificent piece of work, stop-motion animating 7 heads at the same time is awesome and extremely complicated. It is quite understandable that Ray did not have the time or probably the will to make the body more animate.

The harpies were very well done, the mix between animated character and real-life characters was very well done. The wings were very beautifully animated. Fantastic to see the actors working on top of this old genuine temple with the nets and such. Cool scene.

The bronze statue Talos was magnificent. I was blown out of my seat by this sequence, the sound! I had heard of the skeleton sequence, but I had never heard of this, and it totally blew me away. The sound of the metal plating screeching itself and the metal bending and screaming was very very very well done. The way the expressionless face of the statue became a face that was animated by movements of the hands was exquisite.

And then the final sequence of the movie is probably the greatest I have ever seen in a motion picture. Even King Kong or Star Wars (and I am an avid SW fan) cannot top this. For several minutes I found myself nailed to my seat because of these brilliant skeletons fighting Jason and two of his Argonauts. The expressions on their faces, the movements of their seemingly living bones was so genuine and convincing that after a few seconds you find yourself completely believing that this is really happening. In The Mummy (1999) there's a sequence where the main character battles 13 mummies at the same time, I'm sorry to say that the skeleton sequence will continue to beat any CGI created sequence for many years to come. The sheer audacity with which Ray has animated 7 skeletons at the same time and manages to blend these perfectly into the live action shot earlier.

The art direction and set dressing were done in a very colourful, cheery way, which was a relief. The coloring of some of the scenes was astonishing. The way the copper oxide glinted off of Talos's body was magnificent. Some of the photography could have been better, several of the scenes shot in front of a blue screen were just not good enough. I think we can attribute this to budget constraints.

Great story, spectacular special effects, good performances come together to make this a very memorable movie and a sure classic in the genre.

9/10

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)

Such a disappointment

[7/10 · 9 February 2001]

I had been looking forward to this movie for quite some time, mainly because of all the rave reviews it got in all the press out there. But to my astonishment I was very disappointed with this movie.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (CTHD) is pretending to be this very deep and philosophical fairytale about Jedi Knight-like warriors who transcend earthly bonds and jump around like they can fly. The best one of this pack, a role by Chow Yun Fat, is sick and tired of his warrior existence and decides to quit and give his sword, Sword of the Green Something, to some official in Peking and call it quits. But there we have his arch enemy, Jade Hyena, who killed his master and who has trained an apprentice. This apprentice, Jen, played to excellence by Ziyi Zhang, has her eye set on the sword to become the next greatest Wudan (the order) big-shot. Along the way there are some love-interests played out, but these just take way to long.

All in all a nice premise for a fantasy fairy-tale set in China. Unfortunately director Ang Lee chose to keep the pace a little too slow. In many scenes I was bored out of my skull and I even fell asleep regularly during the whole desert sequence, I'm sorry. The acting was good enough from some people to not annoy me. It was nice to see Chow Yun Fat return to his native language, as was Michelle Yeoh, who by the way made no particular impression on me. Fat's death in the end made no impact at all on me, as was the totally incomprehensible ending, what was up with that?

The real merit for this movie goes out to the production designer. Timmy Yip did a great job of creating wonderful settings and decors. The costume design was great as well. Props also. There was nothing wrong with these elements. The fight scenes was very well choreographed, but they could have been a little bit less long. They seemed sometimes to go on and on without really going anywhere. The fact that the Wodan warriors had the ability to fly didn't make me like the movie more, on the contrary, it distracted me from the actual fighting going on. In The Matrix this type of choreography for fight scenes was perfectly in place, it was right on target given the surroundings. But in this movie it was just too much over the top. One more thing, shouldn't swords be just a little more rigid as opposed to what the swords looked like in this movie. They looked like they could bend and crease very easily.

I must be invoking just everybody's wrath by now, and before people start trying to kill me for beating down on this supposed gem, I'm gonna quit this review. I award this a 7 just for the production design.

7/10

Random Hearts (1999)

This is routine stuff

[5/10 · 7 February 2001]

The premise of this movie is a good one. Husband loses wife, another wife loses her husband and it turns out the deceased were having an affair. That is disturbing stuff, but executed very poorly. Sydney Pollack, director of some very good movies in the past and cast member in this one, has struck out big time with Random Hearts. There is no discernible passion between the leads, the two substories are badly written and the overall package is just plain dull.

Harrison Ford is not even trying to put in the effort to make this movie work. He just acts out his lines and strikes up the cash. Kristin Scott Thomas is supposed to be the love interest in this pic, but there is no chemistry between the two leads. The scene that struck me as very needless was the one in the car after the Miami adventure, what the heck was up with that outburst, that could have been more subtle.

The supporting cast wasn't that good either considering the material they were handed. Dutton is barely seen and doesn't make any impression, whatsoever. Pollack himself is acting while directing. The daughter Jessica was the average teenager that can be seen in just about any movie out there.

The script was so fragmented that through some conjuring and manipulating the three storylines finally did collide, but the secondary storielines were so insignificant and incomprehensibly stupid that it didn't make any impact. Bad writing all the way.

If you think a Harrison Ford movie cannot suck, then you're in for a surprise.

5/10

For Love of the Game (1999)

Baseball, love and Costner

[7/10 · 6 February 2001]

Baseball, can there be a greater game in the world? To my opinion, no. Baseball has been America's favorite pastime ever since some schmuck had the nerve to hit a ball with a stick. This is what Sam Raimi has tried to portray in this movie. A sleugh of other movies have come before this one trying to depict what goes on on the field during an important game of baseball, and what happens outside it during the off hours. But never has an entire game been presented during the span of a single movie.

This is what makes For Love Of The Game special. As an audience you are sitting next to the players and in particular Kevin Costner while they go through an entire game of baseball. Here's the premise:

Costner is Billy Chapel, a veteran ballplayer who, on a fateful morning, has his girlfriend leaving him, his boss telling him he is selling the team (Detroit Tigers, yuch) and he gets the news that if he doesn't quit he is going to be traded to the SF Giants (even more yuch), and to top it all off he has to play an important game against the New York Yankees (YEAH!!!) that same day. During this game he pitches he reflects on his life as a player and as a lover.

This is unfortunately where the movie goes wrong. The images portrayed in the baseball match are so vivid and compelling that when Costner thinks back to his past the lovestory takes the back seat and you want nothing else than go back to the game and see if he can really throw the Perfect Game. Kelly Preston as the girlfriend just doesn't cut it, she is never a match for the power of the game and that's a shame.

Costner has to by now acknowledge the fact that he is made for just two movies: Sports movies (Bull Durham, Tin Cup) and Political Situation movies (JFK, Thirteen Days). He is great in this pic, his athletic abilities are absolutely convincing when he performs this role of a pitching star nearing the end of his career at 40. Geeze, he pitched all the balls himself, no CGI was involved there. Although he lulls into some melodrama at times during the love story sequences, but this is more the fault of the script then him.

The rest of the supporting cast was great. John C. Reilly was brilliant as ever as buddy catcher Sinski. Even little Jena Malone pulled off a good performance considering the material she was given. A lot of the players on both the home and the away team were real ballplayers, this gave an authentic feel to whole.

The baseball sequences were shot exquisitely by John Bailey and directed to near brilliance by Sam Raimi. It was nice to for once see into the heads of these players, the mechanisms they use to filter out the audience and to hear the ball hit the mitt with such power was exhilarating. I have never had the pleasure to even see someone pitch a Perfect Game, but this came real close.

There is just one fact that bugged me entire: since when do the NEW YORK YANKEES lose to the Detroit Tigers? It was painful to see my team lose like that.

7/10

Your Friends and Neighbors (1998)

If these were your friends...

[6/10 · 6 February 2001]

what does that tell you about yourself. That is I think what this movie is trying to tell us. But this is not what it tells us at all.

Two couples and two singles constantly talk about their relationships with the other sex and the same sex as well. This is all well and fine, but Labute just takes it a tad too far. The talking in this movie suffocates any plot from developing and subsequently smothers the entire movie.

The acting is all above average. Keener is good as the girlfriend turning dyke overnight and Brenneman is fine as the wife who has a little affair with Keener's boyfriend. Jason Patric is just too obnoxious to watch and be convincing. Eckhart does not show a glimpse of the talent he displayed in the role he performed in Labute's former picture In The Company Of Men (1997). And Kinski is there just for show, she contributes just nearly nothing to the story. Then there is Stiller who, wearing an absolutely hideous goatee, is just pathetic in this role, I could not stand his whining about everything.

This movie cannot stand in the shadow of the incredibly biting satire In The Company Of Men (ITCOM). It is never fair to compare a second movie with a debut, but I have to do it here. The talking in ITCOM was for a purpose, you had to have a stomach for it, but it was all for a cause: gives these characters a way to express their maleness and feel like they amount to something. In YF&N the characters seem to be constantly talking about nothing, nothing, nothing and nothing.

The production values were okay, nothing that really jumped off the screen at me. This is mediocre attempt by Labute to rehash his first feature. I would say better luck next time, but Nurse Betty wasn't that good either. It's incredible that people can be this much obsessed with sex at all.

6/10

Takedown (2000)

Entertaining yet not brilliant

[7/10 · 5 February 2001]

Hackers have always been a source of inspiration for filmmakers. In the past we have seen movies like Sneakers and Hackers touching the subject. Not all of them were that succesful, but still they managed to gather some sort of cult following. The same thing counts for this movie.

"Takedown", based on the real-life events described in the novel by Tsutomu Shimomura, is a story about master-hacker Kevin Mitnick (Skeet Ulrich) and his struggle with the FBI. Mitnick hacks into government adviser Tsutomu Shimomura's (Russell Wong) computer and steals some information from this man. Among this info are the blueprints and complete code for a master-virus designed to protect and/or destroy entire countries. Tsutomu wants these back and decides to pursue Mitnick. This is the premise for a good story, unfortunately this story never gets any further than being a Monday-night TV movie.

The acting was OK from some of the cast, but there were also dismal performances not even worth mentioning. The production values were average, not very exciting. I can't help but thinking that when somebody would want to make a serious movie about computer-people, there almost always are these annoying graphics displays and irritating sounds, when will there ever be a movie that displays screens not in a Hollywood fashion.

The story had some major flaws, characters weren't explained enough, the story had some holes in it, the technology seemed at times a little too much out of this world (although it is supposed to be based on true events).

Although I am convinced that this is not a brilliant pic, it was still entertaining enough to keep me hooked to the screen until the end. The humor was good enough, it had some chuckles to distribute. The action was alright, and it is just plain cool to watch people fiddling around with gadgets and computers (this made Sneakers the great movie it is, not the story).

All in all an agreeable pass-time, although the DVD version I watched sucked extremely (4:3 screen ratio with fixed Dutch subtitles, yuch).

7/10

Cherry Falls (1999)

Oh my God, another slasher pic

[1/10 · 3 February 2001]

Let's make an opening statement: THIS SUCKS!!!

'nough said, I would think.

Let me explain: this was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The cliche's were stacked upon each other until the whole stack came tumbling down. The acting was horrible, production values were absolutely sub-zero, the plot was stolen from every slasher pic there is.

Jay Mohr, what's up with him. He's a decent actor, but he is totally unfunny, not believable and downright boring. The girl lead was just looking for some pic to make herself look good. Biehn has sunk to an alltime low.

People saying that this is a good movie should be exiled from this planet. This movie entered my chart of worst movies of 2001 already at number 1 and I don't think any other movie is going to be able to top this.

Skip this drag please.

1/10

Baba (2000)

Nice movie with a very disturbing history

[9/10 · 30 January 2001]

This movie, which was actually completed in February 1996, is a portrait of a father/son relationship with a twist.

The father who has been widowed is forced to take care of his rebellious son. He tries desperately to form his son after the ideals that the older people are accustomed to. The son is not prepared to be subjected to his father's rule, he wants to get out from under his father's oppressing wings. Now, this sounds all very heavy handed and it could have been, but the director presents this story in such a manner that the heaviness in part is replaced by a heavy doses of cynicism and humor, for this is a satire on Chinese society not so much a satire of family life.

And this is what got the filmmaker into trouble, the censorship office of China decided that this movie was "idealless" and was not suitable for release in China and abroad. So it stayed on the shelf for several years, and it is still there. The print I saw of this movie was a print that was illegally smuggled out of China, and subsequently illegally subtitled to make it ready for release at the Locarno Film Festival where it went on to win the Golden Leopard. Today I had the honour to view this print at the Rotterdam Film Festival as a surprise screening. After the movie there was a Q&A session with Marco Mueller and this cleared a lot up. The theme that is present in the movie is represented by the relationship between the father and the boy, the patriarchal struggle of the father to subdue his son is actually a metaphor for the Chinese government trying to subdue the Chinese people. The father becomes more and more distressed by the fact that he is unable to get his son to do what he wants him to do. After realizing this I looked at this film in a very different light, the message is now very clear and it is clear why the government of China was afraid of this film.

I realize that in a lot of countries there is still a heavy case of censorship going on, I think this is an outrage in these modern times. I was glad to hear as well that certain artists from these countries are now operational on the Internet and publish articles, films and material through this boundless medium. Let's hope the censorship offices won't find something against this. This was a good movie and for the message that it conveyed I award it a...

9/10

The Letter (1940)

Good classic Bette Davis yarn

[9/10 · 30 January 2001]

I must say that I was surprised at the audacity with which this movie was presented. The movie starts off right away like a good-sized rollercoaster from the first minute. Davis presents herself in such an unrelenting and unsympathetic way that it was almost scary, she would have gone over dead bodies to be acquited of the cold-blooded murder that she committed.

The acting was top-notch. Bette Davis delivers a very good stone-faced performance that is very believable, those eyes just seemed to not feel a thing. Now I know what people mean by "Bette Davis Eyes". But I think the male leads were even better. James Stephenson as the lawyer who has to live with the fact that for the first time in his career he has bend the law to save a client who is guilty was superb. The anguish of his conscience was readable off his face throughout the second part of the movie, after being the cool-headed councillor in the first part. The other exquisite performance was by Herbert Marshall, Davis' husband who is used beyond his knowledge in the scheme to get his wife off the hook. He is slowly but surely destroyed during the course of this movie and Davis doesn't seem to care a bit in the end. He is prepared to give her a second chance and forgive the whole thing, but she doesn't even spare him at this moment in the movie. She got what she deserved in the end.

The twists in the storyline were not the brightest in the movie business but still they were executed in such a manner that they presented a nice surprise every time one came around the corner. The "struggle" in the end was very stylish, and the sheer fact that Davis wanted to be with her lover rather that with her husband was a very bold step for her to take.

A big honorable mention goes out to the set decoration, these are so lavishly created that they didn't at all seem like studio sets. The Chinese quarter and the plantation sets were exquisite. The lighting of the several sets was very well established

Although sometimes this movie drops into the extreme melodrama that seems to haunt movies of that time, but this is all fine when you look at the big picture.

9/10

Schindler's List (1993)

Shocking, to say the least

[10/10 · 29 January 2001]

In 1993 I saw this movie in the theater the day it opened here in Holland, and it made such an impact on me that I was afraid to watch it ever since. Now, seven years later, I watched it again, alone, on a saturday night, and again it was one of the most harrowing movie experiences of my life, even on the small screen.

This one is up there among other movies about the Holocaust, such as Night and Fog (Resnais, 1956) and Shoah (1985). I think that when you watch these three movies you can catch a glimpse of what these have gone through during WW2, although this of course can never be established through film, this horror.

All during this movie you are bombarded in a Spielberg-fashion speed with images that are so gruesome that they bring you on the verge of tears. It was only till the last scene of the real Schindler Jews and the actors laying stones on Schindler's grave that I broke. The music, the imagery, the sensitivity with which Spielberg handled this subject was so convincing and staggering that it truly made me cry. I don't think Spielberg will ever make a more personal movie than this.

During the screening I attended seven years ago some people found the imagery too much to handle, and walked out of the theater. It was just too much.

I think 1,000 words are not nearly enough to express what I felt and still feel about this movie, so I will just say:

If you haven't seen this movie yet, see it. If you've already seen it, vote for it and go see it again.

10/10

Videodrome (1983)

Scary, but loses tension in the end

[8/10 · 29 January 2001]

The idea of people being brainwashed into drones just by watching television is a very serious and scary idea. Mostly because I watch a lot of TV myself.

This is a very Cronenberg movie. The ever-returning theme of humans integrating with machinery is very much presented here by James Woods' character blending in with his hallucinations and becoming the new technology everybody must be afraid of. The gun mutating with his arm is the obvious example of this. This is all done with a lot of gore and slime, and this is regrettably what the movie's undoing is.

The acting is very good, James Woods delivers one of his best performances ever. I can not really think of a much better performance from him (maybe Hades in Hercules). Deborah Harry was far better then I expected her to be, her performance gave a very erotic feel to the first two acts, but her character regrettably got lost in the last part. The rest of the cast was fairly unknown to me, but they delivered a good enough effort considering the material they were presenting.

In the third act Cronenberg has to wrap this intriguing premise up in a satisfying way and resorts into gore and violence (expertly executed by Rick Baker) and ultimately fails in conveying his message clearly to the audience. He should have kept the gore in the background and the characters in the foreground. The double ending was well thought of by the way.

The next thing I was worried about is the dating of the movie. The subject of videotaping and watching TV seems to feel less important now in these days of the information age. Computers have taken over the supremacy from the TV when it comes to information-distribution. The internet is omnipresent. A remake should be made of this movie every twenty or so years to keep it fresh. On the other hand: there is of course Ghost In The Shell (1995) which tells a very similar story, only in reverse. A virtual entity wants to become one with the original technology, that of the human body.

When you look at this in total, I think this can not be counted with the better movies made by Cronenberg, such as The Fly (1986) and Crash (1996), but it still deserves an honorable mention for the first two acts.

8/10

Polyester (1981)

Oh my god, it's Divine!!!

[7/10 · 29 January 2001]

This must be one of the worst efforts in moviemaking I have ever seen, and also one of the funniest.

The story of Francine Fishpaw (played by transvestite Divine), the good Christian "wife" of a porntheater owner and how she became an alcoholic is told in such a bad and tasteless way that it became funny to watch. It really made me think of movies made by Ed Wood: so incredibly bad that they must become cult-classics. The timing in the movie amounts to nothing. There is no dicernable structure to be seen for miles around. The plottwists are too ludicrous for words. But it was all made with a lot of love and that is something that counts.

The sets on the other hand have been crafted in such a perfect obnoxious American suburban way that they made me shiver. The same thing counts for the costume design, absolutely fantastically horrible, all that Polyester.

At least John Waters in consistent in one aspect of the film: everybody is a lousy actor. There is absolutely nobody in this cast that can even remotely put on a decent performance. Edith Massey in particular is absolutely too horrible to watch. If only Joaquin Phoenix were old enough at the time, he would have played the role of Dexter Fishpaw to perfection, but he would have been too good for this cast.

The is the perfect exhibition of obnoxiousness and a great satire of American moral values.

7/10