Funky A Reviews

High Fidelity (2000)

Top 5 movies about relationships? Number one would be this one...

[9/10 · 5 August 2002]

No matter how you look at it, High Fidelity is an incredible movie. If you want an hilarious comedy, this one more than does the job. If you want a great movie about love and relationships, High Fidelity is the movie to see. And if you just want to see if you are a true music geek this is the best test ever since if, like me, you really relate to Rob's (John Cusack, excellent in his role) Guide to making a good compilation tape, you are definately a music geek. So this movie is just great, but why. The dialogue is hilarious, all the actors are perfect and, well, the whole movie is a delicious examination of love and relationships AND an awesome comedy. The humor is varied, the characters are great and... Simply put, if you are one of those people who like music and movies, this one is for you. It's as simple as that!

91%

Spider-Man (2002)

With the rights to a great franchise comes great responsibilities... and Raimi is up to the job!

[8/10 · 15 May 2002]

I always loved comic book super-heroes, like the X-Men, Batman, Superman and, of course, Spider-Man. So the fact that so many Marvel movies are going to be released is great news for me. After the very good but a bit disappointing X-Men, I couldn't wait to see what Sam Raimi would do with Spider-Man. And I must say the overdose of CGI that was the preview of this movie made me fear for the worst, and I didn't see Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker/Spider-Man. But what Sam Raimi delivers is an excellent super-hero movie that will also entertain regular moviegoers! Raimi's love of the main character is undeniable and he approches the Webslinger with the light entertaining touch required, dosing funny moments and action scenes perfectly while not forgeting to devellop the storyline, which the movie does very well, dealing with the origins of Spider-Man in a way that wont bore anyone, even those who came to see loads of nonstop action and can't wait for something to blow up... He also deals with the death of important characters very well. But the two biggest surprises came from Tobey Maguire and the special effects. Maguire was perfect in his role and the special effects were not an overdose of high-budget but cheap-looking CGI we have been getting recently. It seems some people think that if it is CGI, people can only think it looks good, although some creatures in movies like The Lord of the Rings weren't very convincing. Well, in Spider-Man, the job is well-done. Of course, Willem Dafoe was amazing as the Green Goblin... But can Willem Dafoe be anything else but great? JK Simmons is the J. Jonah Jameson everyone wanted and as anyone who loved the Evil Dead movies, I was pleased to see Bruce Campbell! Kirsten Dunst was cute and that is the only thing she had to do and the rest of the cast was good. Now, of course, the movie wasn't perfect and some of the dialogue was cheesy. But apart from the dialogue, Spider-Man is everything it had to be: an incredibly entertaining movie that will please people who love comic books and people who just want to see a good summer movie, with great characters (although the Green Goblin ain't the best Spidey villain ever and I will be more than happy to see a Venom/Carnage or Mysterio movie) and a good introduction to what is sure to become a very popular franchise.

84%

The Straight Story (1999)

A beautiful movie.

[9/10 · 8 March 2002]

Simply put, The Straight Story is the most simple movie ever done by the director who makes the most complex movies I can think. So you were confused by Lost Highway or another Lynch movie. Well, The Straight Story is the opposite. You would really have to be a complete idiot to ask to the man sitting next to you "What happened right there, I don't get it". The story is simple: a man who sees his death coming decides that he wants to see his brother who just had a stroke. He hasn't seen him in ten years and has lost his driver's licence. He also wants to do this by himself, so he goes on the road with his lawnmower. This is when the movie turns into one of the most beautiful road movies ever. The beautiful photography and Richard Farnsworth's performance make this simple story a beautiful one, and the rest of the cast, mostly people he meets, are also great. My only problem with the acting might be Sissy Spacek, who overdoes it a bit in her role as Alvin's daughter but nothing really bad. It is simply that alongside Farnsworth's oscar-worthy performance, she doesn't stand a chance. The Straight Story is a movie you will either love or hate. I loved it but I can understand why some would hate it: the slow pace, the lack of action... But this movie is a beautiful reflection on growing old and a movie which touches the viewer deeply. You end up really caring about this old man's quest. Now, wether you love it or hate is up to you, but please, see it!

90%

The Collector (2002)

Luc Picard is there to save this okay thriller...

[7/10 · 5 March 2002]

Le Collectionneur is a thriller made in Québec and based on a book by writer Christine Brouillet. This thriller seems to have been produced to test the market to see if there is room in the small Québec movie industry for the production of big commercial thriller. Right now, people are going to see this movie so it is probably not the last time we see such a movie, and don't be surprised if more adaptations of Brouillet's books featuring detective Maude Graham are released in the next years. But the main question is, is it any good? To that question I must answer that yes, it has its qualities, but also its flaws. First of all, for the cast, Luc Picard shines in an otherwise relatively bad cast. Maude Guérin, who plays the main character is quite bland and the two younger actors of the cast are not very impressive either. Yvan Ponton, who usually is quite good is ridiculous in this movie. It must be said that the quality of the dialogue he has to say doesn't help him but still, he could have done much better. But Luc Picard is truly incredible. He has incredible on-screen presence, his energy is undeniable and he can even almost convince us he can be a nice guy when he is not the crazy serial killer that he is. A great performance for a great actor. Other than him, the only other actor which is good is Alexis Martin, perfect for his small role. The main problem with this thriller is that while it is fairly involving, the story is slowed down by a very bad subplot about Guérin caring for a 16 years old male prostitute and a young boy which fled from his home. These scenes would have been better if the treatment was not as cheesy as it is most of the times. The movie goes from a brutal and dark murder mystery to a social drama which seems to have been made for an educational film about prostitution and leaving home. The murder story, though, is quite well-written. Picard casts the terrifying shadow of his madman over the whole movie and although we do not realy see him until the second part of the movie, we definately feel his presence during the whole movie. Le Collectionneur could have been much better if the overrall cast had been better and if the children subplot had been treated in a darker way, but as it is, it is a good commercial thriller that wasn't made in a big Hollywood studio and gives Luc Picard the chance to shine once again. It is an entertaining movie and the people who worked on it will hopefully learn from their mistakes when they work on the sequel.

68%

Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)

A really good Arnold Schwarzenegger movie.

[8/10 · 3 February 2002]

I am not usually the kind of person who likes an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie, but Terminator 2 is very entertaining. First of all, there is a plot and it is not bad. We are not talking about the best plot ever seen in a movie, but Terminator 2 has a storyline that touches many classic Science-Fiction themes like time-travel and the war between machine and man in interesting ways. Also, Arnold Schwarzenegger is perfect as a robot. You know, he has never been the kind of actor who can show a great range of subtle emotions but the part of a robot is perfect for him. He is a killing machine, and he looks STRONG. And when John Connor tells him to never kill humans, the way he "handles" the order is really good. But even more impressive than the Terminator himself is T-1000. I mean, few movie vilains are as dangerous as he is, and few survive as many harsh treatments has he does. And this is where the incredible special effects come play a role in the quality of this movie. These effects are creative and still credible after more than 10 years. Sometimes, computer-generated special effects do not age very well but those in Terminator 2 are still impressive today. This is an accomplishment. Linda Hamilton is not the most convincing actress ever and it is no different in T2 but she doesn't ruin the movie. Some of the things the script makes her say are really stupid but she is not the most important character in the movie. T2 is about those two robots from the future and they don't dissapoint. The action scenes are good and on the whole, the movie is a really entertaining big-budget blockbuster. And as a bonus, it has a better story than your average action movie.

79%

The Curse of the Jade Scorpion (2001)

Good, old, funny Woody!

[8/10 · 2 February 2002]

So, Woody Allen is now old and it is hard to believe that a rich and attractive girl played by Charlize Theron could be attracted to him... If you were truly thinking about that while watching The Curse of the Jade Scorpion, then you should reconsider the way you watch a movie. Sure, Allen is now really old, but who can play his role as well as he does. He sometimes casts other actors in that role, such as John Cusack in Bullet Over Broadway, but even though they do the job very well, they can't be better than the old man with the big glasses himself. The Curse of the Jade Scorpion is not a serious Woody Allen movie. It is not one of his most important movies that is clear. But its aim is to entertain and entertain it does. Jade Scorpion shares a lot with Woody's recent light comedies such as Small Time Crooks and Manathan Murder Mystery. And like these two, it is certainly not a new Annie Hall. But it does not try to. It is just a lot of fun to watch. The script is funny, the acting is charming, the plot is just hilarious, and on the whole, this movie puts a smile on your face from the beginning to the end. The Curse of the Jade Scorpion is another very nostalgic movie, like Radio Days, Sweet and Lowdown, Everyone Says I Love You and Bullets Over Broadway, but once again, Allen makes us forget for 103 minutes that he is basically doing nothing he hasn't done before. But the man once again shows his gift to entertain. And what more can you ask from an aging genius?

77%

Moulin Rouge! (2001)

A Spectacular Musical!

[9/10 · 30 January 2002]

Baz Luhrmann's Moulin Rouge! achieves what few musicals have done in my life: wait for the next song! Usually, I feel that the songs in musicals halt the story, and become boring when the chorus is said for the fifth time... But it is not the same thing with Moulin Rouge!. First of all, the collection of popular songs that have been used to create the songs from Moulin Rouge! have the word "variety" written all over them. Lady Marmalade meets Smells Like Teen Spirits! The Police, The Beatles, Nirvana, Madonna... The list of bands and artists goes on and on... And everything is really well done! Even better, the story is being told by the songs instead of simply being repeated... But even better than the music is the visual style of the movie. If Luhrmann's camera moved too fast for you in Romeo and Juliet, don't even think about watching Moulin Rouge! without getting a headache. Everything feels larger than life, everything is moving. Beautiful colors invade the screen. This movie is a visual treat. Even better: the acting is actually quite good. Ewan McGregor, an actor I really like, is great and is on screen chemistry with Nicole Kidman is impressive. They are a great couple. And Kidman is beautiful, even more so than she usually is, which says a lot. This only makes it more credible that every man dreams of her. As a movie couple, Christian and Satine are fantastic. Luhrmann might be behind this, as Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes were another great on-screen couple in his previous movie. And John Leguizamo is impressive in the relatively small part of Toulouse-Lautrec. And lets not forget Jim Broadbent, as Zidler, the owner of the Moulin Rouge!, another great addition to the cast. The most sursprising thing about Moulin Rouge!, though, might be the fact that the cliché story is actually quite touching. Basically, this could have been called "Romeo and Juliet Go To The Moulin Rouge", but everyone takes the classic storyline to life with such passion, and the characters are so effective that you dont mind the fact that you have been told a similar story quite a few times. From the beginning of the movie, Christian says that the story will end sadly, but you nevertheless keep hoping... Basically, this love story is much better than 1997's "Romeo and Juliet Are On A Boat", also known as Titanic. So the music is great, the acting is great, the story is involving and the movie is visually stunning. What more can you ask?

87%

Romeo + Juliet (1996)

Surprisingly good.

[8/10 · 30 December 2001]

The fact that I loved Moulin Rouge convinced me to see Romeo + Juliet, Baz Luhrmann's previous movie but I was a bit worried. First of all, Romeo and Juliet has never been my favorite Shakespeare tragedy. And the fact that Leonardo DiCaprio had the role of Romeo did not convince me either. He is not a terrible actor, but he is certainly not a great one. Well, luckily Luhrmann's name convinced me to see this very good version of the classic play. His directing is impressive. The actors also do a great job. Danes and Dicaprio are a great couple, and John Leguizamo is perfect as Tybalt. His performance convinced me, along with his role in the incredible Summer of Sam, that Leguizamo is an excellent actor, someone with the potential to be remembered as one of the great actors of his generation. The rest of the cast is also very good. Sure, there might be a bit too much screaming from time to time but the energy with which Luhrmann films everything makes it seem normal. As for the story, it is told with enough passion to make me forget about everything I dont like about it. All in all, this movie is worth your time, although if you are in the mood for Shakespeare at his best, watch Kenneth Branagh's 1996 version of Hamlet. But if you dont have time for this wonderful 4 hour epic, Romeo + Juliet is a dynamic version of a classic story.

78%

Zoolander (2001)

Extremely funny comedy.

[8/10 · 8 October 2001]

So, Zoolander is not the most intellectually dense movie you are likely to see this year. So what? It doesn't try to be that. It is instead an extremely funny movie starring Ben Stiller, one of the funniest comics right now. After the hilarious Meet the Parents, Stiller comes back for yet another hilarious comedy. This time, he plays Derek Zoolander, a dumb male model who is brainwashed to assassinate the Malaysian prime minister because he wants to put an end to child labor. Zoolander attacks with light(but extremely funny) humor the superficial and exploitative world of fashion. You will probably keep on wearing Nike shoes after seeing Zoolander but at least the movie as a target. But what is really important is Stiller and Owen Wilson, both absolutely hilarious as moronic male models who have to save the president. All the jokes either make you laugh out loud or at least smile. And there are plenty of them. Zoolander also has a lot of excellent cameos(including... DAVID BOWIE!!!... yeah!). As a parody of spy movies, Zoolander sure beats the dissapointing sequel to Austin Powers and may even top the first installement of Myers' James Bond spoof. I will have to watch them alongside one another and see. So, Zoolander won't change your life. So what, it will make you laugh a lot... Sometimes, that is all a movie should do.

81%

Vatel (2000)

Pointless and cold period movie

[4/10 · 8 October 2001]

It is sad that a great cast worked on a movie as profoundly boring and meaningless as Vatel. Whatever the goal of this movie was, it fails... Unless it was to present a good-looking, but meaningless film OR a movie with some of the worst dialogues ever seen in a serious movie and the kind of plot so thin that you have to work really hard to see it is indeed there. Vatel is a movie about, well... A man named Vatel that is for sure. But nothing much happens to him. Sure, there are a couple of moments where we should care for Gérard Depardieu's character, but the problem is that we never really cared about him. And we know he has to prepare a huge celebration for the king. But nobody cares! Why? Because we never got to know the characters very well. Even Tim Roth's character, which we should hate, stirs no emotion at all. His actions are kind of mean, but we don't care. OK, I said that I didn't care for much of this review but that is because Vatel is a movie where stuff sort of happens to cardboard figures which are there to try to fill our need for a character. These cardboards figures fail miserably. And even if the costumes are beautiful, and some of the sets stunning, the directing is not very good. In the end, Vatel bores, leaves the viewer unnafected and fades into it's memory. This movie is forgotten easily and is a pure waste of time. Still, some scenes are visually very impressive. That does not mean the movie is really any good. Sadly the great cast is lost and can't help much since the characters they portray have only one dimension and can't seem to say one line which makes much sense...

49%

Dracula 2000 (2000)

Has one good idea and one good actor in a bad role... The rest is awful!

[4/10 · 13 August 2001]

So, Jonny Lee Miller is an excellent actor as he showed in Trainspotting, a movie which gets better every time you see it, but in this thing, he shows that you can't make bad material seem good no matter how good you are. Dracula 2000 has a cheesy title, a boring, stupid and fairly unsuccessful teen-pop star(Vitamin C) in a role which seems to have been designed for her to be seen topless, no suspense and stupid actions scenes. The fact that, to make Dracula seem like a tougher foe, the legendary vampire seems to react to none of the traditional anti-vampire products makes it even less fun. What makes this movie almost worth thinking for a few seconds before saying "oh it's boring anyway" is a surprisingly clever twist on Dracula's origin. But since the rest of the movie is pure garbage, you should avoid it anyway, except if you simply need to see every vampire movie ever made. If you want a good vampire movie, see 1992's Dracula or Interview with the Vampire. And, one last thing... Why is this movie such a shameless add for Virgin Records? I mean you see Virgin's logo every minute at least twice... Anyway, the important thing is you should not see this movie if quality is a something you like.

35%

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

One of the two best vampire movies of all time...

[9/10 · 13 August 2001]

With a beautiful cinematography, Coppola's awesome directing and incredible performances by Gary Oldman, Anthony Hopkins and Tom Waits, in a short but still incredible role, Dracula is one of my two favorite vampire movies of all time, along with Interview with The Vampire. This movie is one of the best looking of all times, although it doesn't quite reach Sleepy Hollow, the best looking movie in history. Costumes, make-up and cinematography all help to create the gorgeous look of the movie. The story is beautiful, although you can't really go wrong with a fairly faithful adaptation of Bram Stroker's classic. The one thing which bugs me is Keannu Reeves, which proves how untalented he is, without ruining the movie. I mean, you have to pity the guy for being such a lame actor in such an incredible cast. Anyway, the important thing is that this movie is a fascinating adaptation of the classic vampire story and should be seen by everyone who shows interest in good-looking movies with a great cast and a wonderful story. What more can I say? Now see it!

90%

Jurassic Park III (2001)

That's it, no more cheap sequels please!!!

[3/10 · 12 August 2001]

I don't know which of the two sequels to the very good Jurassic Park is the weakest, but they are both bad in their own special way... While the second one was incredibly long, stupid and even had the guts to end the movie on an terribly cheesy "dino in the city" sequence, this third movie in the franchise is a completely illogical and very boring movie. The good part of it is it is so short, you don't suffer as long as during the second one. And no dinosaur ends up in a city this time. But this movie is the kind of sequel which, to make any sense to a human being, requires the viewer to have such a bad memory that he doesn't ask why, oh why some dinosaurs have changed so much since the first two movies. I am of course talking about the stupid raptors which, while they had been terrifying in the first one, have becomes ridiculous. Why are some raptors growing mohawks? Is there a punk trend on this island? Since when do these animals communicate so well between each other? And most important of all (SPOILER WARNING, although spoiling something so stupid isn't exactly spoiling, isn't it)why do these fierce and violent creature now seem pretty nice in their own prehistoric way, since they now forgive people who steal their eggs?(END OF SPOILER, although you must agree that there wasn't much to spoil since it is stupid anyway...). Apart from that, what could I say. I always preffered Jeff Goldblum's Ian Malcolm to to Sam Neill's Doctor Grant, so that makes a few points to add to the weak score The Lost World has... Still, since there is no dinosaur in the city, Jurassic Park 3 gains a few points on that. Anyway, both movies are awful so let's make this a tie match in this clash of the bad movies. Now let's never make another Jurassic Park movie, okay?

30%

Planet of the Apes (2001)

Excellent entertainment, although not Burton's best...

[9/10 · 12 August 2001]

Sure, this new adaptation of Pierre Boule's classic novel Planet of The Apes isn't a wonderful exploration of human behavior or something like that, but that is not it's target. Instead it tries to be an incredibly entertaining summer movie, while still being intelligent and retaining Burton's gorgeous visual style. And with that in mind, it fully accomplishes its goals. First of all, the soundtrack, made by long-time Burton collaborator Danny Elfman is up to the composer's high standards. The brutal percussion-based sounds of his score fit the movie perfectly. The story is very satisfying and the ending is excellent. Touches of clever humor add to the script. But, of course, what steals the show is Burton's gift for creating memorable images and his army of apes, led by General Thade, a memorable character played to perfection by Tim Roth. For this movie, Burton often leaves his trademark dark and blue colors, but the movie still has his wonderful touch. As for the apes, they are very impressive. The cast is good, without having very hard jobs to do, but as I said earlier, Roth shines. So, this may not be Tim Burton's best movie, but it is the perfect summer entertainment, offered to you by one of history's greatest directors.

85%

Hannibal (2001)

"I'm having an old friend for dinner..." should have been Hannibal's last line...

[4/10 · 6 March 2001]

Very weak... Hannibal is just a bad movie which would never have gotten any attention if it hadn't been the sequel to the excellent Silence of the Lambs... OK, maybe it had three high-caliber actors and one excellent director which had just done one of 2000's most popular movie(Gladiator), but let's set things straight... Gary Oldman is an incredibly talented actor but in this movie, he is not playing a role. The make-up he has is the only thing he is... It does the job for him. All he has to do is sit there and talk with so much make-up on his face it is impossible for him to be normal, so his job is easy. Any actor could have done what he has done in this movie... Good gross make-up, though... Julianne Moore too, can be very good, as she as proved in Magnolia, but in Hannibal, she reminds us that she can also be bad just like she was in The Lost World: Jurassic Park. As for Anthony Hopkins, he is still a great actor and Hannibal Lecter is such a great character that it is hard for him to do a bad job, and he doesn't do that. Lecter is still the attractive/disgusting character we know and love but the script he has makes it impossible for him to be half as good as he was in Silence of the Lambs. Hannibal is now a wise one-liner machine instead of the complex character he once was... And if you still consider Ray Liotta a major actor, this movie should convince you that he doesn't deserve respect. Last but not least, Ridley Scott, the director, even if he still knows how to play with lights and shadows(see Blade Runner for the ultimate proof of that), can't save this film from it's incredibly poor script. The movie starts with a cheap action sequence that seems to have as only use to fill our craving for action since absolutely nothing will happen for the next hour and a half... This script is actually the ultimate "What should not be done in a thriller". It seems David Mamet convinced himself that if nothing happens in this movie, maybe he could make it become one of those intelligent thrillers he usually writes(Mission: Impossible, The Spanish Prisonner)... For a thriller to be intelligent, it needs to be thrilling as well as complex and needs solid characters. None of the characters in this movie are almost believable. For example, how could a dumb macho cop such as Ray Liotta's character get such an important job in the FBI? This movie is about as thrilling as a race between five-hundred frozen shrimps... When I say nothing happens during most of the movie, it means NOTHING happens. Clarisse, which has become annoying has hell since the last time we saw her, looks at pictures. Hannibal makes cheap jokes while a cop almost makes something happen while ALMOST trying to catch him(his fate is clear from the moment you see his face). Then, in the last 30 minutes of the movie, everything happens fast and you have trouble understanding what his happening before finally, you understand at the end of the movie that there wasn't much that happened. What you get is the feeling that Hannibal Lecter isn't as fun as he used to be, Clarisse is now an annoying FBI agent and Gary Oldman should exploit his talents instead of putting them under a mask. And the "extreme gore" I was supposed to find was much more tame than I expected it to be. Every scene which should have been tense and gut-wrenching was diluted with cheap humor, even THAT scene at the end, which wasn't that terrible nor intense. The script is mediocre and only Hopkins and Scott seem to be trying to make things better. Hopkins is still good as Hannibal, though he is less intense(mostly because of the script) and Scott directs very well this movie. Another quality of the movie is it's excellent musical score... The rest is just trash...

44%

The Silence of the Lambs (1991)

Great acting make this a great thriller

[9/10 · 6 March 2001]

In the surprisingly small screen time Anthony Hopkins has in The Silence of the Lambs, he has been able to make an intense character and gives one of the most incredible performances in movie history. Hannibal Lecter is a fascinating character and Hopkins is marvelously mad as this maniac. His performance is nothing short of brilliant. Jodie Foster too is very good as Clarisse Starling. She is very believable as a young FBI agent who has to be against a mastermind such as Lecter. The scenes between her and Hannibal are spectacular. Actually, the story between her and Lecter make Buffalo Bill's part of the movie seem weaker than it really is. When you have such great scenes and have to live through good ones, you just hope the greatness will come back... And when Hannibal is back, so is greatness. The script in these scenes is just fantastic. They make an otherwise good movie excellent. The story in The Silence of The Lambs is very well written. As for the directing, Demme overuses the zooming in in some less important scenes a bit but his directing is still very effective and even excellent in some scenes. One near the end is seen through the eyes of Bill and is very well done(which is a good thing in a thriller). Because of the marvellous job done by the actors, Anthony Hopkins becoming one of the most frightening men in the history of movies, very good script and good directing, this movie is an excellent thriller that I highly recommend.

85%

Snatch (2000)

Excellent entertainment with a lot of style.

[8/10 · 29 January 2001]

Snatch is an excellent action movie with a lot of style. First of all, the cast is excellent, the best being Brad Pitt, which is impressive as "One Punch" Mickey O'Neil. The story is simple but told in a way to make it a bit confusing, a bit like Pulp Fiction did. It's not revolutionnary but it is very good. The characters are awesome. But the biggest reason why this film is not just another action movie is Guy Ritchie's stylish directing. His style reminds me a bit of Danny Boyle, one of my favorite directors, but he uses more slow-motions and it is clear that he has done music videos. But while some directors don't know how to use this influence to make a movie instead of a 2 hours long music video(for example, the incompetent who directed the awful Charlie's Angels), Ritchie uses strange camera angles and effects to give style to his story and create images which are hard to forget. Snatch will neither change the way you look at movies nor will it tell you anything about the meaning of life, but you will have a great time and you will not forget some of the images for a long time(I won't tell you which ones because I would give away the story). Anyway, I highly recommend it and after a year of so-so movies with a few exceptions, it is fun to see a really good one.

81%

Cast Away (2000)

Good movie with a bad ending and a little too much Fed-Ex publicity...

[7/10 · 29 January 2001]

Cast Away is a movie that could have been very boring because of its unoriginal subject, but which is very good. Hanks, playing his usual nice American role which he does so well, gives a good performance, although it probably wasn't hard to do so since this role ressembles a lot of the ones he has had in the last years. The rest of the cast is not very important. The movie starts off well, and the plane crash is simply terrifying and shows how well Zemeckis can direct. The part on the island is very entertaining and you take pleasure watching Hanks learning to live in nature. The idea of making this part an almost silent movie is very good and I loved the concept of Wilson(I won't tell you what it is but I will tell you it is GOOD). What was bad was the fact that this movie has a truly unsatisfying ending, nothing really original to offer and Fed-Ex logos everywhere... But it is still intelligent entertainment.

74%

Kids in the Hall: Brain Candy (1996)

The Kids are really good.

[9/10 · 29 January 2001]

If you love the Kids in the Hall, you will love Brain Candy, but if you hate them, you will hate this. I am a big fan of the group and this is just like a very good episode that lasts 89 minutes with a bigger budget and more freedom than on television. Some characters like the hilarious Cancer Boy could never have been shown on TV. All the members of the group are there and they are as good as usual. I just don't get people who don't laugh at Kevin's(my favorite member) face when he plays the suicidal father of Chris or Mark as the "spiritual" cab driver. And just who could resist Scott as a man who refuses to accept the fact that he is gay. And Bruce has some of the best roles, such as the rock star and Cancer Boy. David Foley seems to have gotten the weakest characters, but he is still funny. His best moments are in episodes of the show, not in this. The absurd humor of the show is there, but it is a bit darker. And sure, the directing is not very subtle, but it gives that special Kids in the Hall feel that this movie had to have. And for those who have never seen material by The Kids in the Hall, I strongly suggest that you see this or episodes of their TV show, since they are just hilarious and you may very well get addicted to their unique kind of humor. Personally, I love them, and this movie is very funny in my humble opinion.

87%

T-Force (1994)

This has everything a bad movie needs to be funny.

[1/10 · 29 January 2001]

Some movies have potential and fail to live up to it and others are just bad from the idea to the final product and make you wonder how anyone could think "Well, this is an interesting project and I am interested in being a part of it"... Of course, T-Force has absolutely no potential and falls into the second category. The story is ridiculous and seems to try to be spiritual, with scenes focusing on the robots asking themselves who they are and what is their main goal in "life". The idea of it is stupid and the acting is so bad you will ask yourself how these persons can even be considered actors. Maybe they just needed people stupid enough to accept playing in an action movie with robot sex scenes... Yes, you have read it well, ROBOT SEX!!! But the robot sex is not the most ridiculous part of this movie(although it is really stupid). The worst is probably the costumes for the robots, which seem made out of silver-painted plastic pieces. But let's not forget that it is laughable for a movie that brags about being "full of suspense" that half of the scenes in this piece of c**p are set in a bar with Jack Scalia, which must have gotten the job because he looks like Bruce Willis, becoming a friend with a member of the T-Force around a pool table. Oh, and by the way, this movie reminded me of Operation Delta Force 2 because it overuses cheap slow-motions. Slow-motion can be nice if used in an intelligent way, like in Snatch, but in this case, it makes long action sequences even longuer... Even the title is bad! From another point of view, if you want a movie which will make you laugh because it has worst dialogue than Revenge of the Radioactive Reporter and because the acting is so pathetic you laugh out loud when you are supposed to be thrilled, I strongly recommend T-Force. If you are looking for a good action movie, watch Die Hard, with Bruce Willis, not a look-alike. I guess you have to be a bad actor like Jack Scalia to assemble a crew of bad actors like these and produce such a piece of pure garbage...

5%

Charlie's Angels (2000)

Entertainment, where are you???

[2/10 · 19 January 2001]

I haven't seen all the movies released during 2000, but Charlie's Angels is undoubtedly one of the worst. This is everything required in low-quality entertainment for people who have such low standards they should stop choosing the movies they go see and just go see something, which should be enough for them. Seriously, if this entertains you, you have a problem. This movie is bad from A to Z, skipping the letter M which stands for Bill Murray, an entertaining actor in a bad role. The acting is so unconvincing, you will probably ask yourself if what you are seeing is more than a bunch of girls reading cue cards!!! I'm serious. Barrymore is as bad as usual and Liu is awful. Even Cameron Diaz, which showed that if you give her a good script, a good director and a good partner(A Life Less Ordinary) she will be a good actress, proves that if you give her no script, a bad director which seems to have graduated from the "MTV school of directing" and a bad cast to interact with, she can be absolutely awful. Talking about directing, this movie must be one of the most poorly shot movies of all time. This is the first movie directed by Joseph McGinty Nichol, and I hope it is the last since his directing is so poor you will have troubles understanding how this guy can have the rights to direct. I mean, there should be a law against letting this guy direct. Everything is shot way too close(breasts and butts being zoomed in so often that it seems to be the point of the movie). Cheap camera effects are used to give people who don't know what a director with style is the impression that this movie was shot by a guy with style. You want to see style, see a Danny Boyle movie. You want to see wannabe-style, see Charlie's Angels. The action sequences are boring and shot using everything that made The Matrix original. Note to you, Mcg(as he is credited here): something is original the first time around but when you see it in twenty movies in less than a year, it's called following a trend. I'm just hoping this trend will end soon, because I'm getting tired of it. Really tired. Actually, every scene in this movie has been done once or twice before. And I will not waste a second to talk about the story, since there is none to talk about. Oh, and please, stop with the Friends stars cameo(in this case, Matt Leblanc). And one last thing, Tom Green is not funny, he's just stupid. As is this movie.

23%

The Untouchables (1987)

Great cast, great directing, great score, great movie!

[8/10 · 5 January 2001]

Brian De Palma is a great director and this is one of his best movies. The Untouchables has everything a good gangster movie should have. This starts with a great cast: Kevin Costner is good as Elliot Ness, but surprisingly, the rest of the cast is even better. Connery is excellent, as always, and DeNiro is very convincing a Al Capone. Andy Garcia, an actor which hasn't played in a good movie for a while is perfect for his "tough new cop" role. But two of the best actors in the movie, right behind Connery, are actors I had never heard of: Billy Drago, which is absolutely perfect as Frank Nitti, giving him a cold, and Charles Martin Smith is well cast as Oscar Wallace. Ennio Morricone's score is incredible... And David Mamet's script is very good. But what steals the show is certainly Brian De Palma's directing and Stephen H. Burum's cinematography. This movie is full of suspense, great action scenes and an involving story which never loses steam. This is a very entertaining and well-done movie.

84%

Operation Delta Force 2: Mayday (1997 TV Movie)

Racism-filled cheesy action movie.

[3/10 · 18 October 2000]

Can anyone give me a reason why only one American dies in this movie, and when he does, it is supposed to be a very emotional scene, yet when the Operation Delta Force team kills hundreds of Russians, in slow-motion action scenes, or thousands of Arabs, also in slow-motion action scenes, you are supposed to cheer and say "Take that, you non-American monsters!". I know I used "slow-motion action scenes" a lot, but that is because every action scene in this movie is in, you guessed it, slow-motion. Every last one of them... And this squad should be called "Invincible Slow-Motion Bullet-Dodging Force", since they seem to have supernatural powers that help them to dodge bullets. And if this supernatural power fails, they have some kind of regeneration superpower, which is all they need to kill the complete non-American army that stands between them and victory. By this point, nobody cares since they have been put to sleep by another laughable slow-motion action scene... That is if they are not laughing out loud at the bad acting, cheesy dialogues and incredibly poor story. Which is what I did... The cast is made of unknown actors, which will probably remain unknown since they don't even play characters. They are just playing guys with guns(and, lets not forget, superpowers)... The only quality is that the special effects are surprisingly not that bad(although they are in slow-motion) for a TV movie... But it still sucks... and at the same time is so bad it's good... OK, maybe at the end it gets a little too repetitive...

25%

DNA (1996 Video)

Many rip-offs for the price of one...

[1/10 · 18 October 2000]

DNA rip-offs so many movies... First there is the beginning when you think this is going to be an Indiana Jones rip-off... Then you get the feeling that you are watching a rip-off of Jurassic Park, but near the end it becomes a total rip-off of Predator. The climax is pure rip-off... Actually, the whole movie is... Mark Dacascos brings his special "lack of special touch" to this movie, where he doesn't seem to get that he is playing a DOCTOR!!! And he also has to to take his shirt off because he seems to be really proud of his chest. He simply loves to take his shirt off since he does it in every movie he plays in. OK, Mark, I mean the doctor played by Mark, is really annoying but the worst character is Matzu, a kid which has everything required to make you hope he dies soon: an annoying voice and awful lines he delivers with no conviction whatsoever. The bad acting doesn't stop there. Jurgen Prochnow plays the bad guy. You know he is the bad guy from the start since he looks like a bad guy and sounds like a bad guy... Not very subtle since you are supposed to believe he is there to help Mark, I mean the doctor Mark plays(sorry, it's just that Dacascos seems to play the same character whether he is a soldier or a doctor). Also, the script is so bad, it's almost confusing. I am sure you know the kind of script where the writers make things confusing to make you believe there is actually a story behind all the killing... Did I mention the special effects? If I didn't, I should... Beware, this movie has the worst helicopter crash I have ever seen in a movie. I mean it is a must-see for any cheesy movie watcher just for that crash. It is so fake you will have to watch it twice to believe that in these days of CGI, someone could do a crash that bad... Simply unbelievable... As much as the acting and script of this huge 90 minutes rip-off... At least you get three rip-offs for the price of one...

7%

Wonderland (1999)

Reminds me a bit of Magnolia... but at the same time, not at all...

[8/10 · 6 September 2000]

Michael Winterbottom's Wonderland uses the same formula as another movie of 1999, the beautiful Magnolia, in which we follow the life of many characters, which are linked together. The main difference between the characters of both movies, is that while Magnolia's characters were unconventional, those in Wonderland are the kind of people you cross on the streets everyday. But while the story between both movies are in the same vein, the treatment in each movie is totally different. While Magnolia was only about the many "main" characters in the movie, the OTHER PEOPLE get much of the camera's attention in Wonderland. In many scenes, the camera is distracted by people around the main characters. This is interesting since you get the feeling that everyone on the street has a story to tell. The acting is very convincing. You never get the feeling you are watching actors. Although some scenes are a bit too long, the movie is very rarely boring. I can only think of one scene where I thought "OK, enough, I get it... This is just too long.". Sometimes the documentary style camera is a bit annoying. Other times, it is perfect. A scene in an hospital at the end was memorable. All in all, this is a good movie, with some flaws but also beautiful moments.

80%