Change Your Image
mlescully
Reviews
Kate & Leopold (2001)
Fun, entertaining. . .oh what the heck, I loved it!
I must say I adored this film. I resisted it for a couple of years, just as I often do with romantic comedies (I like to think that I'm somehow "above" enjoying silly fluff films, but I'm usually wrong), and once I acquiesced and rented the DVD, I found that it was exactly as fabulous as I was afraid it would be. For those who say that the science of the time travel was "murky," I say I agree with you, but I don't care. The film set up its own set of rules and obeyed them. . .to a point. The only issue I might take with the filmmaker is a minute one. (SPOILER alert) Kate's skirt in her jump back changed to a more period silhouette, whilst both men's clothes remained as they had been when they jumped. Now, this might be intended as an emphasis that she has "softened. . ." Ok, I miiiight be persuaded on that point. This issue, however, is a minor one, and really didn't dampen my enjoyment of this fun piece. I have been crazy about Meg Ryan since the "When Harry Met Sally" days and I am now officially in love with Hugh Jackman. I must begin his inclusion into my DVD library :)
Signs (2002)
I don't believe I've ever been so frightened. . .
Quite honestly, the most frightening 2 hours I've ever spent in a movie theater (or, to some degree, on this planet). This film brings your worst fears to life and keeps them just outside your range. I will agree with some who say that the direction was uneven at times, but when it was on, it was right on. Go to this one only if you're ready to be up all night.
Signs (2002)
I don't believe I've ever been so frightened. . .
Quite honestly, the most frightening 2 hours I've ever spent in a movie theater (or, to some degree, on this planet). This film brings your worst fears to life and keeps them just outside your range. I will agree with some who say that the direction was uneven at times, but when it was on, it was right on. Go to this one only if you're ready to be up all night.
Joe Dirt (2001)
Kinda dumb fun
Just thinking about this movie made my IQ drop several points, so I avoided it until it came out on cable. So, it was on, and I decided to watch it. Sure, it was dumb, but it was truly amusing. I had forgotten that Adam Beach was in it, and it was such fun to see him in something else(though it was more than a bit embarrassing, the guy can really act), and I wished that he had more to do. I'll give it a seven, at least because the director had the good sense to put him in it.
Old No. 587: The Great Train Robbery (2000)
Cute movie for the kids :)
This movie has everything young children enjoy in a film: a fun premise, a resourceful hero, gadgets, trains, adventure, and bumbling parents. It's as magnetic as a Barney video without the irritating song and dance. Check it out for your kids. 8/10
Forgive Me Father (2001)
Indie film trying too hard
There is a reason you don't see too many independent action films. The action film, as a rule, is a huge undertaking which needs to make money. Indie films are generally the opposite, and for good reason. It may be unfair, but without major studio support, the technical demands of an action film are just generally out of reach. Forgive Me Father tries very hard to make up the difference, but falls short on most accounts. The script has an interesting premise, but quickly lapses into stilted and cliched action-film speak. The direction and pace was too slow to keep my attention from scene to scene, and there was a whole lotta "acting" going on. I found myself thinking that the actors themselves were not fully committed to what they were doing, and therefore I was not committed either. The camera work was rudimentary, some of the props and effects were laughable, and at one point, I even noticed makeup on one actor's collar. I understand that Rogers was attempting to utilize film noir style with his direction, especially with the dialogue and stylized lighting design, but the rest of the film was simply not stylized enough to support such a choice. All of this, in my opinion, adds up to sloppy filmmaking. If you're in Indianapolis, and are interested in seeing a home-grown film, you might wanna check this one out. Otherwise, I'd say you might as well give it a pass.
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
Brilliant!
I have been a fan of these books for a long time, and though I was a little apprehensive about the movie, I have to say that it was one of the most entertaining cinematic experiences I have had in a long while. Everything was perfect. I was a little disappointed in some of the cuts, but that is to be expected when making a movie from a book. Visually, I couldn't be much happier (and I am a visual person). The sets, costumes, actors, and lighting were all beautiful, all that I expected them to be. My only real concern is that the books of Harry Potter were such a wonderful stimulus for lots of kids to read. I hope that the movie doesn't change that.
Hamlet (2000)
Mediocre
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Let's preface this by saying: I adore Shakespeare. The language, the pageantry, the story lines. . .the man was unquestionably a genius in all ways. Many people have panned Luhrman's R&J for being too loud, too flashy and untrue to the text. I say that Shakespeare might've taken a little offense to the cutting that was done of his script, but the story itself was intact, the language reasonably well-maintained, the world carefully constructed, and the spectacle likely what a modern Shakespeare would have approved of. Shakespeare did not set out to write art. The man was trying to put food on his table, same as any other artist. The fact that he created art in the process does not diminish its beauty or integrity. Luhrman's R&J is a success because it does just what Shakespeare intended, in my opinion: it entertains, it tells an intact story, and if it gets a group of surly teenagers to read a little bit, I say use Leonardo diCaprio, regardless of his line reading. Now, on to this "adaptation." "Adaptation" is a kind word for what was done to this play. "Butchering" might be a more appropriate term. Some on this message board have said that they were bothered by the juxtaposition of Shakespearean verse against a modern backdrop. This did not bother me, save one choice. I am all for "modernizing" Shakespeare when it works. However, the trouble here is that no one seems to have thought out the full ramifications of the choices made. Having the "To be or not to be" speech set in a BlockBuster Video store. . . The worst choice I can possibly imagine!! I spent the entire of what should be a lovely and tortured moment thinking that he was reading off video titles. There are three movie titles which have been borrowed from that speech and I just giggled (or would have, if I hadn't been so disgusted) every time our surly hero uttered one of them in BlockBuster (the titles, in case anyone missed this reference are _Outrageous Fortune,_ the one which bothered me most 'cause I spent most of the soliloquy thinking of Bette Midler and Shelly Long hanging from a cliff by their fingernails; _What Dreams May Come;_ and _The Undiscovered Country._) Secondly: this modernization doesn't work at all for one simple reason: it's not important. Hamlet's choices don't matter. Ok, so Claudius killed King Hamlet to gain control of his corporation. Fine. Who cares? The scope of the story is so much wider and more important to a large group of people. Here we have a scenario of brother killing brother to gain financial control. Great. Think Bill Gates' brother kills him to gain control of Microsoft. Is this of national or global import? No, not really, not unless you're a stock holder. But imagine if our beloved George W's brother Jeb killed him off to become president and you're getting a slightly closer idea of the stakes in the original story. The story told in this film is important only to those whom we see portrayed in it. Shakespeare wrote a story which is truly a tragedy because of the untold and unseen millions of people which it impacts, the subjects of Denmark. Further, there were ideas that when introduced, I got excited about, but which simply didn't play out. I loved the idea of everyone being on camera all the time. Fabulous! That makes a statement! Also, I really got excited when I realized that Hamlet's "play" was actually to be a film. And I wasn't quite sure how I felt about his soliloquy about "the player" being about James Dean (actually I thought "WWJDD," but beyond making me giggle, I was ok there). But I wanted to see Hamlet making the film, using real people, and talking to them about what he wanted. I love the "Player King" scenes. I also got excited when I saw foreshadowing of Ophelia's death. ..but again, no payoff. I wanted to see her throw herself into Claudius' pool, perhaps with something belonging to Hamlet tied around her to weight her down. But instead we see her think about it, but not do it. And I wondered about having her drown in the fountain. . .semi-interesting, that was where we saw her spurned by Hamlet the first time, yes, but it made me wonder, since it was such shallow water, if someone had done it to her, rather than she herself. Finally (and I'm actually leaving out a lot here, but this is far too long as it is), I despised much of the final duel between Hamlet and Laertes. Killing Hamlet with a gun? Nope, sorry. The sword/foil needs to be poisoned. This continues to implicate Claudius, ties us back to King Hamlet's death, and makes Laertes' complicity more passive. Here, Laertes makes a choice, ostensibly on his own, to shoot Hamlet, which is a very different thing than having Claudius poison his sword/foil, making the smallest scratch lethal. Also, Claudius must be killed by his own device, the same one which killed Gertrude, or you miss so much drama.
In short, I'd have been a lot less upset about this film if the Shakespeare had either been left in it or out of it completely. Either use the text and drama or dispose of it, but the middle ground chosen here is simply that: mediocre.
Impromptu (1991)
The perfect antidote for the summer blockbuster
Whenever I get tired of the typical summer movie featuring highly evolved apes, genetically engineered dinosaurs, and other such foolishness, I pull out my (well-used) copy of "Impromptu," and all my blues go away. Far from an expensive, smug, carefully marketed blockbuster, "Impromptu" is a thinking person's film. The plot is cleverly constructed, the costumes are lovely, and most important: What A Cast!!! Any film that puts Bernadette Peters and Mandy Patinkin together is a winner in my book (those of us who are theatre junkies are aware of their previous marvellous collaborations), but this film manages to include Emma Thompson, Judy Davis, Julian Sands, and Hugh Grant. What fun!!!
Cruel Intentions 2 (2000)
A lousy rehash of a great story
I was willing to go with the original _Cruel Intentions._ It went along with the plot and stayed true to the characters of one of my favorite stories. However, this movie was, in my opinion, a crummy rehash with essentially the same story line and no clear character choices. I didn't honestly care what happened to any of them. The strongest part of the original story (Les Liasons, not CI) is the characters and their interactions, not the events themselves. I wasn't clear until I read the IMDB that this movie was meant to be a prequel, especially since the title includes a number "2," I expected a sequel, but then determined that it must be a companion piece. Over all, I must say that this movie read, to me at least, like a soft porn version of Les Liasons. I was not impressed.
Gladiator (2000)
Digital effects are fine in some situations, not in others
I have no problem with the use of digital effects where circumstance, be it money, danger, the death of an actor, etc requires their use. However, I was most bothered by their use in this movie in situations where they seemed to be there simply for their own sake, and often not illuminating the plot, characters, or situation. The most obvious example of this, and, frankly, the one which bothered me the most, was a scene between Maximus and Marcus Aurelius, I believe, on the battleground. The snow was obviously digitized and the two actors seemed to be standing behind a "snow curtain," not unlike the "rain curtain" I saw used in a touring stage production of _Singing in the Rain_ a few years ago. Neither actor had more than a couple of flakes on his costume in a pretty furious flurry. Also, the foley that we were hearing in this scene was that of the wind whistling, implying that there was at least more than the breath of wind which the snow's lugubrious progress down the frame, occasionally drifting back up into our field of vision again. It is true that snow DOES do this from time to time, but not in the company of winds more than a breeze. Perhaps this is a nitpicky thing, but it and a few other unnecessary digital effects somewhat destroyed my full commitment to the world which Ridley Scott so painstakingly created. This sort of effect can be easily achieved with some plastic snow, (and/or rosepetals, in the case of another scene) which any self-respecting propshop can give you, and an industrial fan.