JokerSwan

The Grudge 2 (2006)

Cheap Scares and... That's About it

I liked the first The Grudge. It really creeped me out and it had something to it that made me want to see it twice. That something was missing from this sequel. There was no creativity, nothing new or original, nothing that really sticks to your mind. It's people dying because a scary ghost comes out of the shadows and says boo. And most of the time, it wasn't even all that scary.

Plot-wise this movie is a dead end. Amber Tamblyn is a good actress, but she was given nothing to do, and Karen's death seemed really unsatisfactory because it came so quickly. I was also disappointed in the Kayako's mother subplot. I was thinking that she might provide some way to fight the Grudge, but she dies in the hands - hair? - of Kayako. That was such a stupid twist. All in all, it's difficult to feel for characters that you know from minute one are going to die. All in the same way. And there's nothing they can do. It doesn't feel like a cruel destiny awaiting them. It's just boring, because you know what's going to happen. If they had anything to fight it with, that would have added suspense, even if they failed. If there was any hope, it would make the scares more justified. Now you're just waiting for them to die.

Kayako was really scary in the first movie, but this time we saw her too many times and that took away some of it. I was still scared during some scenes, but I actually got used to the huge eye and blue face. The makers obviously realized this would happen as they added other scary ghosts. Yes, I was scared at the school psychologist scene - even if I knew where it was going as soon as she said "I've been to the house". A nice touch. Toshio, however, was not scary at all in this movie. I was much more creeped out by the non-blue Toshio with black eyes and a blank stare that sometimes appeared in the first movie. A blue boy sitting in the corner does nothing for me.

Some of the characters seemed really unnecessary - the notorious milk-scene with the girl whose name I can't even remember comes to mind. I wasn't scared, it was just "Huh?" I'm not sure if the schoolgirls were even really needed. Karen could have brought the grudge to the US with her. It could have killed people related to her life, everyone at the funeral, or something like that. Even so, it would have been dull to watch them all die, but being introduced to so many unrelated people really felt annoying. Hated the "I won't call you mother" scene. Aubrey's mother issues were equally dull. The little boy was a touching character, though.

The Ju-On sequel was much scarier than this one. It had some new twists - dreams and reality blurring much more, for instance - and even if it left me feeling quite down, I was also somehow satisfied. I got to think a bit and be left wondering. This movie only provided cheap scares.

When a Stranger Calls (2006)

Hello..? Is something gonna happen soon? Hello??

-SPOILERS, but really, if you've seen the trailer you've seen the movie- I haven't seen the original, but if it's even half this bad, I don't see why this version was even made. Maybe this was scary to some people in 1979, but this is 27 years later and we've seen better by now. If you're going to do a remake, at least add something original. This had a K-15 rating in Finland, so 13-year-olds can see it with an adult, but it's still a pretty high age limit (Silent Hill, among others, has the same one). I think most 11-year-olds have seen scarier movies than this.

The whole premise - for what it's worth - rests on creating suspense, but it's never there. I kept waiting for something to happen, but it didn't until the very end. The beginning seems promising with its carnival imagery and scary sounds; the idea of there not being a murder weapon, as well as the policeman being appalled, seems to bode well for the story. But these elements are never brought back. It takes a while before anything starts happening, and all the jump moments before the killer appears are really just fake: a cat jumps out of the shadows; a scary human form turns out to be a coat. It's called cheating the viewers, not creating suspense. If there's no threat, why should we feel fear? The attacks, when they finally come, fall flat because of no suspense in beforehand. The only cool visual image were the yellow birds indicating the glass of the indoors garden had been broken. But it didn't make me scared, exactly.

Now, at the end of the movie, you can hear TV reporters voice-over about the murderer. They claim he plays an "elaborate game of cat and mouse". Well, not so much. Making threatening phone calls is pretty standard. He only really makes about five of them, in most of which he says nothing. As soon as he's discovered as being in the house, he makes straightforward attacks at Jill and the children, and there's nothing clever about it. There are scenes that indicate he might be somehow supernatural - for example the scene where he bangs on the door and then there's no one there when Jill goes to answer it (cliché, I know). But then he's caught and tranquilized by the police, and even Jill could fight him physically. So is he really a supernatural evil or just a crazy guy killing young beautiful women? If it's the latter, I'd rather watch CSI for free and with just as much suspense, if not more. If the former, then why isn't he given anything exciting to do? The only supernatural part is how he gets into the house, which isn't enough.

Some people are saying it wasn't supposed to be horror, but a psychological thriller. I think that would require more from it. A psychological thriller is something like Silence of the Lambs. This genre requires a back story, well-thought out characters who are relatable, and a villain whose motives and personality are discussed in some way. It's not enough for a psychological thriller to relate the story of a teenager who gets scared, so scared she loses her mind. And if that is the only story, you want to do it well and make the viewer feel her fear, which the director and writer have failed to do here.

There's not back story to speak of. The protagonist is a stereotypical teenager whose boyfriend cheats on him with her best friend, so now she's mad at them. She has no personality other than "generic teen girl in horror flick". The murderer is given even less of a description. Who is he? Why does he kill? Is he even human? The writer obviously didn't care. The TV reporter's dramatic voice saying his identity "remains a mystery" seems to indicate that it's somehow more exciting that his identity isn't revealed. Well, it's not really. If he acts like the generic movie bad guy and isn't given any depth, he isn't interesting in any way.

So the question is: Why should we watch yet another movie about a young attractive girl being haunted by a male stalker? My answer: we shouldn't. There are plenty of better movies out there, so avoid this one.

Rude Awakening (1998)

Daring and Unusual Comedy

Before this show aired in Finland, the channel aired these commercials, like, "Billie Frank drinks.. and has casual sex!" The voice of the presenter suggested that this was portrayed as something admirable. I thought I wouldn't watch such crap. But I happened to see one episode and was instantly hooked. The show just seemed real to me - the characters were rude, imperfect and at times completely selfish; there was no laugh track and the dialogue was more natural than on other shows; the humour was somehow very original, it stemmed from the characters' personalities in a natural way. Sexuality was dealt with in a daring way. Sherilyn Fenn was great as the imperfect Billie, Dave and Jackie were also brilliant characters, and of course Trudy who was really the second star of the show.

The topic and the way it was handled seemed realistic to me. I don't have much knowledge about the AA or alcoholism, but it just rang true to me how Billie's lifelong addiction and relapse was portrayed as an ongoing problem she needs to work against her whole life. On so many shows, you have this token alcoholic character (soap operas in particular) who goes on a drinking binge in one episode and recovers in the next. This show dared to show a more accurate portrayal: the long-term effects, the desperation for a fix and the ugliness of it all wasn't glossed over. It's a daring topic especially for a comedy, but they pulled it off. I felt like I could see life through the eyes of an alcoholic - and be entertained at the same time. Kudos.

When the show stopped being about the AA and decided to "move on" into Dave's bar, it got blah for me. Some of the edge was lost when it was no longer about addiction. It turned into a relationship comedy instead, and that is the end of many fine shows. Haley was cute, but essentially just a babbling, bumbling character who didn't add much to the mix. Tim Curry as Trudy's new boyfriend was good, but not good enough to keep the show funny. And what was all that crap about Marcus and his marriage crisis? Hey, let's add a new character who looks good without a shirt. Oh look, his wife's a bitch! Don't you wish we made an episode all about him? The last season was full of "emotional" moments that just seemed sappy to me. The whole marriage plot was the worst. The irony is that when the show dealt with genuine difficult things and touching themes, it was never sappy. When it started to deal with "touching" imaginary situations and love triangles, it lost its edge and became a sappy regular comedy. The only interesting theme in the last season was that Trudy was facing the truth about her addiction - but would she be funny anymore if she quit drinking? I doubt it. Characters like her don't need a "serious" side; they're tragic in themselves, that's why they're funny.

But the last season can't wipe away what this show did in the first ones. One of the most daring and genuine comedies I've ever seen. Highly recommended.

Scary Movie 2 (2001)

Could it get any worse than this?

I liked the first Scary Movie. Yes, it had silly and gross jokes at times and the parodies weren't as sharp as they could have been. But it WAS funny and it had parodies. This sequel started out about the same, but soon the parodies were dropped to make way for the Wayans brothers' running gags, the same as in the first movie. These are:

1. Gays. Gay guys are all nymphomaniacs, so watch out straight guys! Don't befriend a gay guy, he's sure to fall in love with you and/or molest you. And the doll rape scene? Not funny, just gross.

2. Handicapped people. In the first movie there was Dewey, the mentally retarded guy, whose only redeeming moment was when he turned out to be the killer who had only been faking retarded the whole time. In this movie there's Dwight, a wheelchair-bound guy who's obsessed with never asking for help. I don't think I get the joke there. We're also introduced to Hanson (played disgustingly by Chris Elliott), who has a withered hand and - well, that's it. He's gross! I mean, a withered hand, no need for a personality or anything. Just like Goldmember on Austin Powers, he's just gross for the sake of gross, and therefore not funny.

3. Bodily fluids. We got to see them all in this one, and when there's a pee scene, a fart scene and a vomit scene within the first minutes, you're in trouble. The sperm explosion joke from the first movie was repeated. These are surely funny moments to some viewers, but to others like me it's just cringeworthy and disturbing.

4. Sex. This can't be avoided in a teen comedy, but it was supposed to be a parody of scary movies and not all about sex. I agree with the poster who said the Wayans brothers should just make a porn movie. They seem obsessed with sex.

5. Drugs. Shorty's back and still not doing anything but smoking pot. It gets really tired after a while. I did laugh when the plant rolls a joint with him inside, but other than that, it wasn't funny at all.

The only part that works is the Exorcist spoof in the beginning, but even that is ruined with crap, pee and vomit jokes. Notably, this part is the only one without the main characters present. As for the roles, Anna Faris does her best, but her role is pretty much being a stupid pretty girl. Kathleen Robertson gets to play the sex bomb and Tori Spelling is the "athletic" girl who has sex with the ghost, and who dies pretty soon. Both are pretty underutilized and aren't even present in most scenes. The new addition, besides Hanson and Dwight, is a parrot saying dirty/rude things, which is pretty predictable and boring.

All in all, a very disappointing sequel. Not worth watching. 1/10.

Bread (1986)

Fond memories

I have fond memories of this show. It ran in Finland when I was 11-12 (in 1990-1992), and I fell in love with Joey Boswell. I would never miss an episode. I thought it was so much fun, especially every time the family drove to solve some problem: first Joey's Jaguar, then Jack's van, then Adrian's motorbike and Billy's old broken Beetle...There was always one empty chair at the end of the table, and I imagined myself sitting there as the youngest daughter of the family. I remember the catchphrases - "I'm not ready for all this!", "She's a tart!" (which my grandmother disapproved of), "Greetings!"... Adrian's poem "Granny's Bucket" and another one that went something like "If you were dead, I'd go to all the places we were together and cry.. But you're alive. And I hate you." I learned many English words from this show, including "greetings", "tart", and "retaliate".

I remember being heartbroken when Joey's actor was changed. My idol was the original Joey, Peter Howitt. I also hated the new Aveline and felt the show was never the same after the change of these actors. I don't know which season that was, but apparently I'm not the only one who thinks the show went on too long. I can't believe Carla Lane blames the fans for abandoning the show - I would assume that repetitive scripts and characters that never evolve wouldn't keep the fans' interest on for very long. I used to think the unchanging nature of the show and the stay-at-home grown up kids were safe and positive, but as a grown up viewer I might get tired of them.

I haven't watched Bread in 14 years, and I'm not sure if I'd like to see it again and spoil the memory. For one thing, at age 11, I missed out on all the irony and subtext. A lot of the things I admired, like Joey's dedication to his family, might seem negative now. My mother, a social worker, thought the characters were offensive for their blatant abuse of the social security system. She thought that their real life counterparts would be very unhappy and pitiful, not someone to laugh at. I was mad at her at the time, but I can see her point now - the show made fun of unemployed people and presented them as lazy abusers of the system. The humor that made an 11-year-old laugh might seem tedious and repetitive to an adult. I don't think "she is a tart" would amuse me now.

For me, this show is best left unspoiled. It was very important to me once, and I'll always have those memories. A part of me will always live on Kelsall Street.

Walk the Line (2005)

Not your average biopic

I had no expectations for this movie; I hadn't seen the ads or heard the buzz. I wanted to go to the movies, had the choice between Pink Panther and Walk The Line, and having seen the Pink Panther ads, I picked this one. I went in expecting another biopic: OK to watch once, not remarkable in any way, just a quick fast-forward through the biggest moments of Johnny Cash's career. I was wrong.

The focus on Johnny and June is what makes this movie so compelling. It serves as a filter: every detail about Johnny's career doesn't have be shown, we don't have to follow his life until he dies, and so forth. Instead, we can focus on the topic of Johnny and June, and the movie has a story with a structure and a happy ending. It also serves to make this movie more intimate than most biopics: we see Johnny's personal life, not only in short clips, but as a continuing theme throughout. It makes him more human. Stellar performances from both lead actors, particularly Reese Witherspoon, who portrays June's compelling personality very well. The chemistry between the two lead actors is great.

The childhood scenes also worked. In most biopics, these are very short and seem like gratuitous foreshadowing of the star's later career (see the otherwise brilliant Man on the Moon, for example). Here that was avoided by focusing on the brother's tragic death. That and the father's attitude served to explain Cash's problems later in life, and they weren't overdone. The death was touching, but not too dramatized; it seemed fairly realistic. We got to see just enough of Jack and the family dynamics to understand how devastating his death would be for the others.

The only thing I wanted to see more of was the courtship between Johnny and Viv; there never seemed to be any chemistry between them, as all we saw were their marital problems. It would have been nice to know why Johnny fell in love with her and what made them get married. It would have humanized Viv a bit; as it is, she comes off as a rather demanding woman who doesn't understand Johnny's devotion to music. I'm not saying she had no reason to complain, but this aspect was overdone in my opinion.

The music scenes worked well to set the tone and serve as transitions throughout the movie. Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon shine on stage and their chemistry is especially good in these scenes.

All in all, this is one of the best biopics I've ever seen. Highly recommended.

Kingdom Hospital (2004)

Boredom Hospital

I like some of Stephen King's stories. He can write a good story with lots of suspense and interesting characters. He can, however, also write tediously boring and repetitive stories that take forever to resolve. Sadly, Kingdom Hospital is the latter kind.

A part of the problem lies in editing. Every episode begins with an enormous "previously"-segment. I'm talking 2 minutes, even 3 in the last two episodes. Long "Next week" clips were served at the end, giving away any suspenseful scenes in advance. In addition to that, there were flashback sequences and 'new' scenes that were essentially repetition of what had happened before. It seemed that the episodes were 50 % filler and the whole show was a long teaser - "Just wait and see! Something exciting is gonna happen real soon!" But it never does.

There was no real balance between hospital vs supernatural plots. Every time something exciting happened, we'd cut to something boring and mundane. The hospital stories were dull, the Mona Klingerman malpractice story in particular. It took like 3 episodes to hide an anesthesia report, and what was the conclusion? Someone took a copy of the report. Oo, exciting.

The characters are also a problem. In 13 hours, we'd have plenty of time to get to know them and like them, but no one is given any back story. There are no conflicts between the characters, apart from Stegman vs. everyone else. Some of the characters are really only given a few lines within the 13 episodes. Fewer characters would have given the more important ones more depth. There are too many patients that we really don't know well enough to care about, and three "romances", but apart from a few kissing scenes, we really don't get to see these couples interacting either. The love plots seem gratuitous.

The actual "ghost story" is left equally vague and dull. The characters figure things out painfully slowly, and it's usually stuff we already know - "Your name is Mary!" Wow, only the most common name in the world. Get on with it! And then they stop the fire from happening in the past - with a fire extinguisher? What a disappointing conclusion. The bad ghosts are never dealt with or explained. In the end, they're still there to retaliate - which was probably the second season story arc that never happened because the show was canceled.

And the guard of life and death is - a giant anteater. This is supposed to be Anubis? It's a little difficult to respect a character conceived with lame CGI graphics and awful dialogue: "Ant-solutely delicious"? "I do you a solid, you do me a solid"? The latter sentence is repeated so many times that I started to wonder if Stephen King thought this is somehow an incredibly witty pun. I hope not.

And the names - Johnny B. Goode, Janice McManus, Jesse James, Carrie Von Trier? A crucified priest called Jimmy Chris? If the hints had been subtler, maybe it would have worked, but it's just too obvious. Way too many King references, too.

In the end, I was very disappointed in this show. I give it 5 out of 10 points - it was well made for what it was, but for the story, I give it a 2. You can do much better than this, Steve.

Oh Baby (1998)

Not so funny, not so realistic, not much anything...

Despite the title, this comedy really isn't about having a baby. The first few episodes are, but as the show goes on, it focuses more and more on the character of Tracy, her wacky family, her friends, and her work. It's a very ordinary comedy; the only original part is that we get commentary from Tracy while she watches her life on videotape. The commentary is self-ironic, but rarely truly funny. In fact, nothing about this show is particularly funny. There's a neurotic, cold mother, a weird psychiatrist who can't handle her own kids, and other such clichéd characters. The woman who plays Tracy overacts terribly. It's awful to watch.

Furthermore, I have a problem with the very premise of this show. OK, so Tracy feels like it's time for her to have a baby. Her boyfriend disagrees. So the logical conclusion to that is - she dumps the guy and has artificial insemination? What? I must admit I agreed with her family that it was a weird choice to make. I'm not against artificial insemination or single Moms, I just think it's a choice you should give some thought to, and Tracy just seems to do it as a lark. So how can this show depict the problems of women who have artificial insemination, if it makes it seem like an easy decision you do overnight? All in all, a terrible show. I'm glad it was canceled.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

A breath-taking chase through the subconscious

-SPOILERS-

This is a brilliant movie. The uniqueness of the plot surpasses even Being John Malkovich, which was my favourite movie before this. Everything falls into place: writing, editing, casting, music. The only thing that disturbed me was the ending, because I felt it was resolved a little too quickly. However, this is possibly the best stuff I've ever seen from Kaufman, and great work from Winslet and Carrey.

There are many different ways of making a movie like this(I could imagine the writers trying different strategies before coming up with this one). The timeline is very important. The true brilliance of the movie is in the time sequence. It can be very confusing at first, but it's also very intriguing.

There are many scenes where you are led to expect a more chronological narrative. In the beginning of the movie, when Joel and Clementine meet, you are fooled to thinking it's the first time they meet. Cue the opening credits and their breakup. When Joel is at the doctor's office, he starts talking about the first time they met; we see a film rolling, showing the party where it happened. You might expect to see their whole relationship in flashbacks with Joel as the narrator, but the flashback is cut off and we're back in the story. What you then see is their whole relationship in flashbacks, but in a REVERSED order, with Joel being aware of the procedure and trying to change the chain of events. He isn't narrating old events to the viewers, he is reliving them and trying to hold on to the memories as they are disappearing before his eyes. The result is a breath-taking chase through Joel's subconscious - somewhat similar to the one in Being John Malkovich, but more deep. At the same time, we see the "erasers" working at Joel's apartment and their relationship with each other, which also becomes somewhat surprising.

The movie deals with a lot of deep issues. For example, how love turns into hate; how the memory works; how you have to erase a person from your life totally when you break up, and a big part of yourself too. In the end, Joel and Clementine decide to fall in love all over again, despite the problems they had. It can be seen as a statement: even if love isn't easy, it's always worth living.

10/10.

Love Actually (2003)

Fragmented, unfunny movie

• Spoilers, in case anyone really cares-

This movie is best characterized by the last scene: 100 tiny pictures of ppl hugging each other. That's just about what it was all along. A bunch of couples falling in and out of love, some of the stories very loosely related. Fragmented, difficult to follow, and none of the storylines were carried out properly. I suppose this happens when they have too many famous actors and actresses that all need a role in there somewhere. Rowan Atkinson, for example, got only one funny scene, although he's on the promo posters. They could have done so much more with him.

Somehow the film doesn't fit the genre. It's not really funny, and a romantic comedy should have "happy endings" for everyone. What happened with Keira Knightley and her husband's best friend? Did they fall in love now? So she'll leave her husband, well merry Christmas to you too. And Emma Thompson cheated on and Laura Linney stuck with an insane brother and losing the guy - not my idea of a feel-good movie.

As for the humor, it was really almost nonexistent. There were a few "cute" scenes, and I laughed heartily at Bill Nighy once or twice, but it seems the writers didn't even really try to make it funny. The jokes were predictable, forced and sometimes just plain weird (like the little girls wanting to hear Christmas carols - huh?) There was only one big laugh in the theatre during the whole movie. Didn't feel like watching a comedy. Bill Nighy as the aging rock star and Colin Firth with his Portuguese girl were funny at first, but both stories were watered down by the end. The "fat sister" thing was so predictable. They even hinted at it in the beginning of the movie!

Speaking of which, what's with all the fat jokes? They're ok in Bridget Jones, but here we have a normal weight girl being called "plump", and Emma Thompson comparing herself to Pavarotti?! Way to promote a healthy body image. Not to mention the characters who actually were fat. I wonder if the writers have weight issues?

Hugh Grant was, as usual, charming, but his storyline wasn't as central as I had hoped. Also, they shouldn't have brought in the politics between USA and GB. I get the Monica Lewinsky joke ("plump" girl kissed by US president), but it just didn't fit the movie.

And the appalling storyline about the little boy who falls in love? 11-year-old boys do NOT fall in love. And he just lost his mother but is much sadder about a girl not noticing him? Maybe if he were 15, and the mother had died a year ago, or something. I couldn't believe the airport scene. It's even older than "fat sister" or "friends are more important than success". Too many clichés for one movie.

I mostly went to see this movie for Hugh Grant, so I didn't expect too much, but I was still disappointed. This movie was just too shoddily done to really touch me in any way. 5 out of 10 points (3 for Hugh Grant&Emma Thompson, 2 for the content).

Not Another Teen Movie (2001)

Better than I expected

I rented this movie, thinking it would be another sex-poop-dumb jokes- sketch show à la Scary Movie. I was wrong. This won't become one of the great comedy classics, but it's the best parody of teen movies I've seen so far.

Unlike in Scary Movie, the parody is actually clever, and there is great attention to detail. The movie mocks the original teen films, not their audience. For example, the movie doesn't make fun of ugly girls, but rather the stereotype of an ugly girl in teen movies.

The "Cruel Intentions" parody was my favourite, along with the "American Beauty" weird guy character. They were done really well. Some of the jokes, like the pie joke from "American Pie", could have been left out though - reusing jokes from the original movie is not very creative. The whole "we have to have sex before the term is over"-thing, on the other hand, was done well, as the boys making the pact in this movie were 13. They were really cute.

There are, of course, bad moments too. What bugged me the most were the constant dirty jokes - how many times can you laugh at an oral sex reference? It gets old really fast. The poop scene was appalling, not funny. But there aren't too many scenes like that.

All in all, a decent, funny comedy. With some more work on the story, taking out a few sex jokes and other dumb gags, it would have been a really good movie.

East Is East (1999)

Interesting issues, bad jokes

East is East deals with some quite serious issues, such as domestic violence and of course cultural differences within a family. The story is quite interesting, but leaves a lot to be desired. I don't see why this had to be a comedy. If they made a drama out of this, it would have been much better. Some of the elements were downright tragic, such as the wife beating scene and the poor youngest child who had to hide behind his hood. These things were acted out well and gave food for thought, but the overall quality of the movie was uneven.

Nothing wrong with the acting here, the mother and the father were good characters, as well as some of the children. Tariq, the youngest boy whose name I forgot and the boy who hanged out with him were well made. The oldest son, the girl and the other boys had less depth and left me thinking the writers didn't know what to do with them. Tariq's girlfriend and her fat best friend were stereotypical and boring characters, as well as the other family who wanted to give their daughters to marriage.

The humor seemed terribly forced. Some of the scenes were funny, but none left me roaring with laughter. Most of the humor was just old and uninspired. How about coming up with your own jokes before making a comedy? There's been talk here about the profanity, and it didn't bother me, but profanity isn't enough to make a good joke.

There's a double standard in the movie. The traditional culture's view of women is shown as sexist and bad, while the western-world beauty ideals are presented as good and natural. A fat girl clinging on a boy and following her best friend even on a date? Pleease. What about the ugly brides of the boys? The mother tells them "you are not good enough for my boys" - even though the girls did nothing but looked bad. Soo sexist. This might be funny for men, but as a woman, I was only offended to see this stuff. It's stereotypical and just simply not funny.

The other stereotype is with gays. A young man doesn't want to get married - he's gay! Look, he's a hairdresser! Soo gay. Is that funny? NO. If humor has to rely on stereotypes, it shows lack of creativity.

Make this movie again with more drama and less stupid humor. Make all the children characters in their own right and include more discussion on the cultural problems and domestic violence, and you've got a great movie. The way it is now, I give it a 6 out of 10.

Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002)

Hilarious albeit recycled sequel

* Contains minor SPOILERS - although they don't really matter with a movie like this* It seems most people were disappointed in this movie. I expected to be, too, but I wasn't. A lot of Austin fans seem to have expected a new plot and I'll amdit that this was mostly recycling the old elements. But I think this sequel, although it lacked in originality and plot, was just as funny as the previous ones.

Sure, the plot is thin - even surprisingly thin, considering the other two movies had a coherent plot. The story doesn't seem important to the writers this time, it doesn't really proceed for most of the movie, it's just parodies and gags. That's ok, though, as long as they're funny. And for the most part, they are.

The beginning is hilarious. Tom Cruise as Austin, Gwyneth Paltrow as the girl, Kevin Spacey as Dr Evil and Danny DeVito as Mini Me? LOL!! It's so unexpected and well made. However, the Britney Spears cameo is disappointing and the musician cameos are just dull. All they do is play the keyboards. The whole Hollywood idea doesnt' really fit well with Austin Powers. Especially the ending seems to take some of the edge off the story.

Michael Caine/Nigel Powers seems unnecessary. The whole father plot is a bit weird, especially the ending. It seems like a good idea, but they just don't use the character enough. Nigel doesn't have half the charisma of Austin, either, although he seems to like women as much.

Foxxy Cleopatra was also a bit disappointing. After the hilarious first scene with the lip synching man - it looked SO weird! -, she fails to make a real impression. In fact, she does almost nothing throughout the whole movie. She just stands there and looks sexy.

Goldmember is a bad character. He's insulting to Dutch people, and non-Americans in general (why are Americans so xenophobic? Everyone has an accent, there's nothing funny about that). And he just plainly isn't funny. The mole thing - funny the first two times, but there could have been less of it. Fat Bastard is exactly the same as in the last film, and I always found him gross and unfunny. I didn't want to see him again. The sumo wrestling part was funny though.

The funniest character is Mini-Me, although I didn't like some of the scenes that made him act like a dog. Mini-Me as Austin is the funniest thing about the movie. Dr Evil isn't quite as funny as in the previous though, but still gets a lot of laughs.

I think Austin himself is losing some of his charm - in some scenes he talked in a voice that was too "normal" for Austin, like when he was visiting Dr Evil in the jail. Nothing groovy about that scene. Somehow it seemed that Mike Myers sometimes forgot he was playing Austin Powers. That's the impression I got anyway.

It seems no one else liked Dr Evil and Mini-Me's version of "Hard Knock Life", but I found it simply hilarious. It was so surprising! I think it was funnier than "Just the two of us" in The Spy Who Shagged Me. The Japanese subtitles joke was funny although it was a bit overlong, and I also liked the doctor's appointment scene. Some jokes, like the Japanese twins, were a bit dumb, but there were also some great puns(like the..eh..linguist one).

All in all, Austin Powers in Goldmember is as funny as the other two, although it lacks some of the originality and charisma. I laughed throughout the film, just some overlong scenes at the end seemed boring. There was a lot of gross stuff, but not too much in my opinion. I liked this, but I hope there won't be an Austin Powers IV. This is still a worthy movie and would be a good ending for the series. The next one might just suck.

The Flintstones (1994)

Sure, it LOOKS like the Flintstones..but that's all

The Flintstones with real actors - hey, that sounds cool. Great special effects, good casting(John is SO much like Fred), and Steven Spielberg - how could it go wrong? Well, somehow, it did. Probably because of the script, this movie that starts off nicely, soon turns into a bore for grown ups and hardly a blast for the kids. The story is dull, and all the cliches are there - nagging mother-in-law, sexy secretary, rich ppl becoming arrogant, you name it! The question is, why did they bring these "grown up" elements into the movie? This is marketed as a kiddies' film, and I doubt they understand the story very much; for grown ups, it's simply boring to see the old cliches used once again, just in a funny setting. There are few truly funny moments, and though the actors do their best, they can't save the movie from being dull, silly, and in parts very sappy. It's a disgrace, as the original cartoon was funny, cool, and the family scenes were simply endearing.

One of the things I liked was Rosie O'Donnell doing Betty's role. In the original cartoon, Betty is as slender as Wilma. It was nice to see a big girl cast in a positive role, her weight never being an issue. And Rosie does it so great - listen to her laugh. Go Rosie!

All in all, I give this movie a 3 out of 10. That's for the special effects and casting. Too bad they didn't bother to write an actual storyline.

Look Who's Talking Too (1990)

Why didn't they let the children talk?

I was disappointed with this movie. Not that I don't like this kind of comedy, I loved the first one, but this just doesn't live up to that.

It's not the kids' fault though. Mikey is still a cutie, and he's got some good jokes, although I don't get the speaking arrangement - he says a word or two himself, and then it suddenly switches to the male voice. I think they should have chosen either or. This was just annoying.

Roseanne as the voice of little Julie is GREAT, and there are some really good parts with her(like the visit to the doctor). But where is she for most of the movie? There is so much of the parents fighting and problems with the goofy brother-in-law that it seems the kids take a second seat in this film. I was bored at times with the long fighting scenes. They were neither interesting nor funny. The pregnancy was fast-forwarded through - I suppose they had no more ideas for it after the first movie - and Mikey's jealousy for his sister gets less attention than the potty training(which is far less interesting). The burglar story is too unbelievable to be funny. And the "music video" parts are weird - why are there so many songs? the Elvis impersonation is pretty cool(by John Travolta), but the rest of the "classic pop songs" should have been left out.

There are some really cute sister-brother scenes, but this movie could have been so much better, funnier, and more interesting if they had let the kids play the main role. Now it's pretty disappointing. Some good laughs, but not enough to save the movie. I give it a 5 out of 10.