001. (5 Jan) MST3K: Red Zone Cuba (1966/1994, Coleman Francis/Trace Beaulieu)
Josh: As MST3K episodes go, this is one of Mike's better ones. It starts with
a short titled "Speech: Platform Posture and Appearance" which is a
typical 50's short shown to a captive audience of schoolchildren. The real
treat is the actual movie. Red Zone Cuba is an incoherent movie with
a plot that has to be seen to believed. Coleman Francis (bearing an uncanny
resemblance to stooge Curly) plays some sort of outlaw (I think) who hides
out with a couple of transients (I think). They need money, so they decide
to join the armed forces attack of Cuba to make a few bucks. There is a
thrilling scene where the roughly eight (8) U.S. soldiers attack the roughly
twelve (12) residents of Cuba. Something happens that I don't remember and
the guys are back in the U.S., where they go back to throwing the fathers of
blind women into deep wells (they actually did that once). So much for pathos.
Anyway, there is a surprise ending where someone left for dead in Cuba comes
back alive. Unfortunately, Curly and his gang killed his wife while he was
gone. The last scene is a thrilling showdown reminiscent of Butch Cassidy and
the Sundance Kid, insomuch as the outlaw was shot by the law enforcement.
Anyway, the filler in this episode wasn't very good, but we watch MST3K for the
movie anyway, and this one was funnier than most. Grade: +
Beth: The movie itself was one of the more horrendous I've seen MST3K tackle, especially
as far as any kind of coherent plot goes. As is usually the case, I would rather
leave than take the not-so-funny non-movie parts of the show, but the gang's comments
during the movie were often hilarious. This isn't the funniest MST3K I've seen, but
it's certainly funnier than some, especially for a Mike episode (I'm a Joel girl all
the way). :) Grade: +
002. (5 Jan) You Can't Take It With You (1984, Kirk Browning/Ellis Rabb) -- Jason Robards, Colleen Dewhurst,
Elizabeth Wilson, Nicolas Surovy,
Maureen Anderman.
Beth: I've grown up with this, um, not-exactly-movie, and so have probably seen it a few
dozen times (with parts of the dialogue memorized). This play (a video of the
Broadway production) has some of the funniest writing ever, and in this particular
production the parts are played and the lines delivered so perfectly that this version
starkly stands out among any other version I've seen. It is in my opinion better than
the 1938 movie version which won the Oscar for Best Picture. Anyone with any quirkiness/
weirdness in their family will be able to relate to the characters, and even those sad
souls who don't will still get a ton of laughs plus a message about enjoying life as it
comes to you and not being afraid to be yourself. Grade: +
Josh: This is the first time I have seen this video, and I was impressed. This play is
relentless in the endless one-liners and gags throughout. However, these jokes do not
run old after a while; instead, the performance picks up steam as it goes along. Jason
Robards is great as the slightly off patriarch of a family of much sillier people. This
is not a play of subtle acting: the players act with gusto and the performance reflects
this. Grade: +
003. (6 Jan) Heist (2001, David Mamet) -- Gene Hackman, Danny DeVito, Rebecca Pidgeon,
Sam Rockwell, Delroy Lindo, Ricky Jay.
Josh: David Mamet is a master of dialogue. The other three Mamet movies I have seen (The
Spanish Prisoner, The Winslow Boy, and State and Main) are great examples of this,
and Heist is no exception. However, Heist is not on par with these other two movies.
The Spanish Prisoner gave us a protagonist to root for and a semi-believable plot (if
a little implausable). Now, I don't need a protagonist pounded into my head, but Heist
just left me scratching my head (and not in a good Memento sort of way). So what if Gene
Hackman's character ended up with the gold. I don't like him any better than anyone else
in the film. Also I realize that the exploding control tower may keep some people preoccupied,
but nobody noticed the guys unloading cargo off of a plane that was just suppossed to take off?
There may have been just as many plot holes in The Spanish Prisoner, but they actually
bugged me in Heist. That really says something about this movie. However, it's still
a Mamet movie, and he never makes anything bad. Grade: 0
Beth: Hmmm. It's hard for me to figure out what I thought of this movie. Compared to the other
David Mamet movies I've seen (the same three as Josh) this would be at the bottom of the list.
It was enjoyable for the most part, but it seemed to lack some of the zing of the other three
Mamet movies. A lot of the dialogue wasn't as distinctive, and parts of the movie were a bit
hard to follow. It was also a darker movie than the previous Mamets, which I know he has done
some of in the past (and which I have not seen). At least in the case of this movie, I like
his lighter (not light, mind you, as parts of The Spanish Prisoner probably wouldn't qualify
as "light") movies better. And, Rebecca Pidgeon looks better with non-boyish hair. But I
suppose that's not really a valid criticism of the movie. Grade: 0
004. (8 Jan) Waiting for Guffman (1996, Christopher Guest) -- Christopher Guest, Eugene Levy, Fred Willard,
Catherine O'Hara, Parker Posey.
Josh: I consider this quite possibly the funniest movie I have ever seen. The "script" was nothing
more than a list of scenes and a general outline of where the movie goes. Virtually everything is
ad-libbed, and as a result the dialogue comes out as fresh instead of canned. The characters and
scenes are all-too-familiar for anyone who has ever been involved with community theater or high
school drama. The whole thing is done absolutely perfectly. I have seen this movie nearly a dozen
times and never tire of it. Grade: +
Beth: Gee, what can you say about this movie? It may be the funniest movie ever made. Of course not
everyone has the right sense of humor to love a movie like this, but if you don't you're really
missing out. The film is a mocumentary about a community theater production in a small Missouri
town. The commentary track along with the movie was by Christopher Guest (Count Rugen in The
Princess Bride) and Eugene Levy, who both starred in the movie as well as writing the parts
that weren't ad-libbed. It's probably best to listen to the commentary when you've seen the movie
enough times that you can easily follow along without being able to hear all the dialogue. My one
disappointment: the guys never explain what was up with Catherine O'Hara's gravity-defying bangs.
Bummer. Grade: +
005. (12 Jan) Best in Show (2000, Christopher Guest) -- above cast, plus Michael Hitchcock, Michael McKean,
John Michael Higgins, Jennifer Coolidge, Jane Lynch.
Beth: For anyone who hasn’t seen this, stylewise it’s along the same lines as Waiting for Guffman
(same writers and director, and much of the same cast). Although, I would imagine most people
would have either seen both of these or neither. This movie also has many very funny moments,
though in my opinion is not quite as funny as Guffman. A lot of the characters aren’t
as funny as their Guffman counterparts (the roles played by Christopher Guest and Parker
Posey especially spring to mind), but everyone still has their moments. Fred Willard is the best
part of the movie, providing comedic and at times rather ignorant commentary for the dog show
alongside a very well-played straight man (Jim Piddock). People like me will also have to get
past the ever-present homosexual themes—while much more subtle and, I think, funnier, in
Guffman, here they are a little overdone and, though funny at times, it is ultimately
too much. Grade: +
Josh: Best in Show is no Guffman, but it is still a great movie. Guffman tends to be a bit more
understated, which is more my kind of humor. Also, the characters in Guffman tend to elicit
more sympathy, as many of the characters in Best in Show just aren’t that likeable. Complaints
aside, I have seen this movie a handful of times and still enjoy it a lot. Grade: +
006. (13 Jan) This is Spinal Tap (1984, Rob Reiner) -- Christopher Guest, Michael McKean, Harry Shearer, Rob Reiner.
Beth: Rob Reiner’s “rockumentary” about fictional British rockers Spinal Tap (Michael McKean,
Christopher Guest, Harry Shearer) is funny in the same way as Waiting for Guffman and
Best in Show, but it has a much grittier feel to it. Here we actually see the documentarian
(Reiner’s character) and his interactions with the band members. It is a very funny
movie, with some subtle humor (or should that be humour?) that will reward more observant
watchers. The movie is especially impressive given that it was Reiner’s directorial
debut, and was undoubtedly the inspiration for Guest’s later films. To anyone who wants
to see this movie, I would recommend the DVD version. It has loads of extra features,
including music videos, fake interviews, and an audio commentary track, not by anyone
behind the scenes of the actual movie, but by the fictional band members , watching the
documentary on themselves several years later and reminiscing about the moments as they
watch them. This track is pretty much constant dialogue by the three guys,and is just as
funny, if not at times funnier than, the movie itself—really, the track is like a whole
other movie in and of itself. Grade: +
Josh: If you rent this movie, get the DVD. The movie is pretty funny and has some hilarious
moments, but the funniest moments in the entire movie came in the deleted scenes and
the audio commentary. The best part of the whole DVD was a deleted scene where the band
was preparing to visit Graceland, and Nigel was trying to figure out how to pose the Gumby
in his shirt pocket in the way most respectful toward the late Elvis. (I believe he settled
on bowing Gumby’s head and crossing his hands in front of him.) Be forewarned, this movie
(and the commentary track) do have a fair amount of language. Grade: +
007. (13 Jan) Sidekicks (1992, Aaron Norris) -- Chuck Norris, Beau Bridges, Jonathan Brandis, Mako,
Julia Nickson-Soul, Danica McKellar, Joe Piscopo.
Beth: “Beth, what in the sam hill are you doing watching a Chuck Norris movie?” you ask. Well,
I guess it’s confession time. I could tell you that I’m a closet Chuck Norris fan, but
quite frankly that would be even more embarrassing than the truth. I caught this movie
for the sake of nostalgia because of......here goes......Jonathan Brandis. A.k.a. Lucas Wolenczak,
boy genius and teen heartthrob of “seaQuest DSV”, and unfortunate crush of yours truly during
the days when “seaQuest” was still on the air. So, I had seen this movie several times—a good
movie it is not (did I mention it stars Chuck Norris?)—but it provides a good laugh for someone
like me now. It is a formulaic, unpopular-teen-with-asthma-learns-martial-arts-and-the-meaning-
of-life-from-wise-old-man-and-finds-the-hidden-strength-within-himself-to-triumph-over-the-school-
bully-and-win-the-karate-contest movie. Oh, yeah, and gets the girl (Winnie Cooper...er, Danica McKellar).
One question I have for the makers of this film: would it really have been so hard to teach a
kid playing an asthmatic how to properly use an inhaler? Grade: -, but with a sick kind of affection
008. (13 Jan) Much Ado About Nothing (1993, Kenneth Branagh) -- Emma Thompson, Kenneth Branagh, Denzel Washington,
Keanu Reeves, Michael Keaton, Kate Beckinsale,
Robert Sean Leonard.
Beth: I’m not a really big Shakespeare person, but his comedies often strike more of a chord with me
than the heavier stuff. This movie is not heavier stuff—for the most part, anyway. Yes, it
does have your typical Shakespearean dialogue, meaning the average person will have to give
this movie more of their attention than they would most movies in order to follow the dialogue.
But even given that, it is an amazingly easy movie to watch. It has all the hi-jinks of a
typical Shakespearean comedy with trickery and misunderstandings running rampant. It is
probably as funny as Shakespeare ever could be, but still with a few more dramatic scenes
to provide a bit of substance. Add to all that a near all-star cast and the fact that the movie is shot
in a very visually-pleasing way, and you’ve got a pretty darn good film. Grade: +
009. (19 Jan) Mary Poppins (1964, Robert Stevenson) -- Julie Andrews, Dick VanDyke, David Tomlinson, Ed Wynn.
Beth: They just don't make movies like this anymore. It's a shame, really. It's been a few years since
I've seen this, but it's as good as I remember it being when I was a kid (unlike episodes of "Full
House" I catch on cable every now and again). I had forgotten what a master of physical comedy Dick
VanDyke can be, not to mention a fantastic dancer. My favorite scene is still the one with all the
chimney sweeps dancing on the rooftops--sort of West Side Story-esque, actually. This movie is just
pure family entertainment, and when I have kids I'm going to try to make sure they see at least as
much of this kind of thing as they do of the kind of "family movies" that come out nowadays. Grade: +
010. (20 Jan) Magnolia (1999, P.T. Anderson) -- Tom Cruise, Julianne Moore, William H. Macy, Philip Seymour Hoffman,
Jason Robards, John C. Reilly, Philip Baker Hall, Melora Walters.
Beth: A very odd movie. Sometimes in good ways, sometimes in bad ways.
The Good: Acting. It was, in no uncertain terms, superb. Directing. The movie was presented
as several separate stories, completely apart from each other in the beginning but starting to
overlap in some ways as the movie progressed. I liked how the different storylines were cut into
each other, keeping me in suspense over a particular plot until the movie would eventually come
back to it. I also liked how a few times dialogue from one scene was overlaid onto a short montage
of the other storylines, with whatever was being said carrying some sort of meaning for each.
There was also a brilliant moment when one character began singing along with one of the
ubiquitous Aimee Mann songs in the background, and we then cut to subsequent shots of all the
other main characters, each one singing along to the song in their own sad way. I've heard this
scene doesn't work for some people, but I found it moving, especially given the lyrics of the song.
The Bad: Nasty Language. There's lots of it. Characters. The only characters I really liked much
at all were the poor boy on the quiz show and the sensitive home care nurse played by Philip Seymour
Hoffman. Pretty much everyone else disgusted or at least annoyed me most of the time. Story/Subject
Matter. For the most part this movie was just downright depressing. There was very little comic relief
of any sort, which is something that I personally need in such a serious movie. Also, the whole movie I
was waiting for all the plotlines to come together in some way, and I never really got the payoff I was
hoping for. And, finally, I would have to quibble a bit with the concept the narrator at the beginning of
the movie introduced, about chance events and strange coincidences. The way it was set up gave the
impression that this idea would be illustrated by the movie in some major way--something I never saw.
There were hints of it, but in my opinion not the major theme I was expecting.
The Bottom Line: This was a very well-made movie, one with unique touches that make it very
memorable; but it is also a movie that I will probably never see again. It just wasn't enjoyable enough
to watch. Oh, and the frog thing was just bizarre. Grade: + (barely)
Josh: I liked this movie more than Beth did, but I share many of her complaints. I expected a lot more
of a payoff to tie all of the characters together within the plot. The prologue hints at a big
coincidence holding the film together, but really there was nothing in the film that required any
coincidence at all. I wasn't too happy with the machina ex deus ending. A lot of reviewers didn't
like it, and other reviewers say that those people just don't get it. I don't care. I get it. And
I didn't like it. Beyond that, the movie was great. I wasn't too fond of the screenplay, but the acting
and directing were phenomenal. It felt shorter than it actually was, which is always a good sign.
Grade: +
011. (21 Jan) Heartbreakers (2001, David Mirkin) -- Sigourney Weaver, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Gene Hackman,
Ray Liotta, Jason Lee, Anne Bancroft.
Beth: This is a sometimes-funny movie that could have been funnier. It stars Sigourney Weaver and
Jennifer Love Hewitt as a mother-daughter con team, Weaver marrying men who are somewhat
"loaded," and Hewitt seducing them before the marriage is consumated, the new wife always catching
her husband in the act (but before anything really happens). The two then make out like bandits in
the divorce settlement, with Weaver claiming emotional trauma and laying all the guilt she can on
her soon-to-be ex for cheating on her so early in their "marriage." So, most of the movie is Weaver
attempting to forge a relationship with repulsive tobacco tycoon Gene Hackman, while Hewitt tries
a con of her own on a local seaside bar owner (Jason Lee), who's really the only nice guy in the whole
movie. Well, guess what happens next. She (gasp!) actually falls for the guy and faces a moral dilemma,
while her mother, well, yeah, there's stuff going on there, too. I've liked Jason Lee ever since I saw him
in Mumford (a better movie than this), but his presence wasn't enough to save this movie--it just left me
with a feeling of blah for some reason. It's a funny enough movie, I guess, just not funny enough.
Grade: 0
Josh: I enjoyed watching this movie. It's fairly light-hearted and fun. The plot concept is original
and interesting. It took me a while to figure out why I couldn't give this movie a plus. Finally,
it came to me: absolutely no time is devoted to anything other than the main story. Gene Hackman
plays a tobacco tycoon. Without any background into his business, he's just a one-dimensional
character. Jason Lee's character owns a bar, which he is pressured to sell. Do we ever get a
glimpse into this pressure? No, we are just told about it. He has employees/friends at the
bar that could help give us a better glimse into Lee's character, but they don't say much of
anything. Everything about most of the characters is told to us; we don't get to find anything
out on our own. For such an original plot, this movie is awfully cliche. On the flip side, it
doesn't really aspire to be anything more than it is, and I don't think there's anything wrong
with that. Grade: 0
012. (25 Jan) Evolution (2001, Ivan Reitman) -- David Duchovny, Julianne Moore, Orlando Jones, Seann William Scott.
Josh: When done well, movies spoofing a genre of film can be funny and insightful. When done pooorly, they
are just another flick that deserves to be spoofed itself. Evolution falls between these two extremes, but
usually finds itself leaning toward the latter. Maybe I haven't seen enough rebel-biologists-try-to-save-
the-world-from-aliens movies, but I found most of the jokes in this movie falling flat. I can't come down
too hard on Evolution for doing what it set out to do, but I can't recommend it either. Grade: - (barely)
Beth: This movie is pretty much what the commercials made it look like. Well, actually, it's not quite as dumb
as they wanted you to believe. It's close, but not quite. It did have some funny moments, and some
entertaining moments, but it also had stupid moments, gross moments, just plain ridiculous moments,
and more than a few completely implausible moments (from a scientific point of view). Actually, the whole
premise was scientifically laughable, but I won't get into that. Yes, it was a pretty stupid movie, but funny
enough to escape a "minus" from me. Grade: 0
013. (26 Jan) Amelie (2001, Jean-Pierre Jeunet) -- Audrey Tautou, Mathieu Kassovitz.
Josh: For a good review of Amelie, see Matt's review. There's not too much that I can add to it, except to say that
the standards of decency are different in Europe and you should be prepared for some brief nudity and scenes
shot inside a porn shop. This makes the movie sound a bit seedy, but it's really not. It's a happy, mostly
innocent movie that is very enjoyable to watch. Grade: +
Beth: This is a cute and quirky movie. It is also a French movie. Meaning, it has subtitles. This was the first
subtitled movie I had ever seen, and I think how much I enjoyed it is evidenced by the fact that by about
halfway through the movie I had forgotten I was reading subtitles and it didn't feel any different from watching
a normal movie. This is not, however, a normal movie. It is clever and funny and better than most movies.
I could've done without some of the more graphic sexual images (not that there were really that many), but it
is a French movie, so it wasn't really a big surprise. Grade: +
014. (27 Jan) Wonder Boys (2000, Curtis Hanson) -- Michael Douglas, Tobey Maguire, Frances McDormand,
Robert Downey Jr., Katie Holmes.
Beth: I sort of got what this movie was trying to be, it just didn't really work for me. I guess you could call it a dark
comedy, and I was thankful for the lighter, funnier moments, because the rest of the movie I just didn't find all
that interesting. It was interesting at times, but not as a whole. I can see why a lot of people (especially critics)
really liked this movie, I just don't happen to be one of them. Grade: 0
Josh: Hmmm.... I don't really know what to say about this movie. I'm not sure what it was setting out to do, and I got
nothing from it. The characters were developed pretty well, but the plot wasn't particularly memorable or
interesting. I'm writing this review nine days after watching it. I thought for a while that I had forgotten some
of the plot, but I am beginning to realize that the plot just wasn't there to begin with. I've been considering giving
it a minus, but Beth insists that I thought the movie was OK right after watching it. This is why you should write
reviews right after watching a movie. Grade: 0
015. (2 Feb) Spy Game (2001, Tony Scott) -- Robert Redford, Brad Pitt, Catherine McCormack.
Josh: Robert Redford and Brad Pitt working together as spies in an intellegence thriller. Sounds like a great movie, right?
Well, it was. There were the typical cliches you'll expect to see in a movie like this, but for the most part it was
fresh and original. The movie takes place in a mostly-flashback format which reminded me a bit of Bandits: both
movies immediately introduce us to the plot as it's starting to approach the climax, followed by a lot of scenes
illustrating how we got to that point, followed by the climax and resolution itself. Spy Game interspersed a lot of the
present between the flashback scenes, trying to justify the flashbacks by having Redford's character explain to fellow
agents how he met Pitt's character. The way that was put together was a little hokey (perhaps showing scenes from
the past without trying to justify them in the present would have been better) but the movie as a whole was very good.
Grade: +
Beth: I really enjoyed this movie. It's one of those movies that is intense and suspenseful a lot of the time, but isn't afraid
to make the audience laugh. Robert Redford is very good at projecting a sort of subtle humor that is often funnier than
an outright joke would be (Sneakers is another good movie where he does this very effectively). I liked the way the
movie was shot and edited--I think it really contributed to the mood of the film. The movie ended somewhat suddenly,
a bit earlier than I expected, but afterward I realized that going any further with the story would have taken something
away from the effect of what had just happened and how it was revealed to the characters. Grade: +
016. (6 Feb) The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985, Woody Allen) -- Mia Farrow, Jeff Daniels, Danny Aiello.
Beth: This was a pretty interesting movie, and I liked it better than the other Woody Allen movies I've seen (Annie Hall and
The Curse of the Jade Scorpion). Hmmmm. Maybe that's because Woody Allen himself wasn't actually in this one.
What happens in the movie reminded me of the episode of "Northern Exposure" where at one point the actors step out
of character and start talking about how stupid the scene is, finally deciding to skip it and go on to the next one. This
movie has a similar feel at times and is clever and original in its storytelling. I'm not sure I really liked the ending,
though--it felt too unresolved. But somehow I have a feeling that was what ol' Woody was going for. Grade: +
017. (9 Feb) Ghost World
(2001, Terry Twigoff) -- Thora Birch, Steve Buscemi, Scarlett Johansson,
Bob Balaban, Brad Renfro, Illeana Douglas.
Josh: Ghost World is a teen movie unlike any other. It follows a girl with a "Gilmore Girls"-esque
sense of humor (but more cynical and sinister). She meets a dorky middle-aged guy
who
first just serves as amusement to her but eventually becames a real friend.
This is one of
the few movies that really seems to do exactly what it sets out to do. I thought the
characters were interesting and real, and the film itself was done very well.
Grade: +
Beth: Okay, here's the deal with this movie. I did not
dislike it. I did not love it. I basically liked
it okay. Like many people who loved it, there were certain parts that I
could really relate to.
And there were parts that I found hilarious. But for some reason the movie
as a whole
didn't strike me the same way it did for people who loved it. I don't
know. Maybe I'm just
off-beat enough to think it was okay but not enough to love it. Grade:
0
018. (15 Feb) The Last of the Mohicans (1992, Michael Mann) --
Daniel Day-Lewis, Madeleine Stowe,
Steven Waddington, Russell Means,
Wes Studi, Eric Schweig, Jodhi May.
Beth: This is a great action/romance. It's not really a
thought-provoking movie, but it's not
supposed to be. It is beautifully shot and the score is one of my absolute
favorites. It really
defines the movie in a way most film scores fail to. I know that this
particular version had
to have been edited an amount that should really be illegal (the movie's runtime
is 122
min. and it was squeezed into a two-hour block with commercials--yikes!), but as
long as
I've seen a movie in its entirety before, I feel I can still adequately rate it
(as is also the
case with the next two movies). I'm glad there are at least a few cable
stations out there
that show movies unedited and uninterrupted. Grade: +
019. (16 Feb) Cool Runnings (1993,
Jon Turteltaub) -- John Candy, Leon, Doug E. Doug,
Malik Yoba, Rawle D. Lewis.
Beth: This is what Disney movies should be (non-animated ones, I
mean). Family-friendly,
hip, and funny all at the same time. This is just one of those enjoyable
movies that
makes you feel good about life. I'm sure there are people out there who
don't like this
movie because they think it's simplistic or predictable or just plain stupid,
but if you're one
of them I don't want to be friends with you. Grade: +
020. (18 Feb) Election
(1999, Alexander Payne) -- Matthew Broderick, Reese
Witherspoon, Chris Klein.
Beth: I'm not going to write much on this, because it's one
of those things that I just can't really
figure out what my opinion is. The first time I saw this movie was at a
free screening
for college students before it was released a couple of years ago. Then, I
would have
given it a "minus." Now I feel like upgrading that to
"neutral." I don't know why I liked it
a little better this time, and really I doubt enough people are ever going to
read this to
make it worth my while to go through the effort of trying to figure out
why. I do know that
I still didn't really sympathize with any of the characters, which I guess you
could say is
one of my film pet peeves--it makes it so hard to like a movie when you don't
like the
characters. Grade: 0
021. (20 Feb) The
Majestic (2001, Frank Darabont) -- Jim Carrey, Martin Landau,
Laurie Holden,
David Ogden Stiers, Bob Balaban, Hal Holbrook.
Josh: The Majestic suffers from all sorts of movie cliches: amnesia, courtroom scenes, large
crowds present at every major scene, red scare subplot, etc.
I don't really care. I liked
this movie. I've always liked Jim Carrey more in dramatic roles, and this was no
exception. It is a happy movie although utterly predictable.
I enjoyed the characters and I
enjoyed the plot, and sometimes that's all a movie really needs.
Grade: +
Beth: First of all, I pretty much agree with everything Josh
said. In addition, I'll say that
one other flaw in this movie was that it was a little longer than I think it
needed to be.
Parts of it were slow-moving enough that I consciously took note of it during
the film
(not usually a good thing). I also strangely found myself actually wanting
the movie to
end without any kind of payoff as to whether the two main characters ended up
together.
That's really strange for someone who's always been a fan of romantic
comedies. I still
can't really figure that one out, but I thought that would have been a better
ending in a
way. Despite the fact that all my comments were somewhat negative, I
really did enjoy
the movie. Grade: +
022. (22 Feb) A Walk to Remember
(2002, Adam Shankman) -- Mandy Moore, Shane West,
Peter Coyote, Daryl Hannah.
Beth: So. Mandy Moore's an actress now. Sort of.
I wasn't terribly impressed with her in this
movie, but I wonder if her character might be more to blame than her acting
ability (I don't
recall her being particularly bad in The Princess Diaries). Her character
here is just a
little too over-the-top for me: perfectly sweet, perfectly innocent,
perfectly perfect...and
perfectly unbelievable. Nobody's that one-dimensional (she even changes
the radio station
from rock to cheesy easy listening--come on). So anyway, MM is good, Shane
West is bad,
and after getting in trouble his principal sentences him to several school
service projects,
every single one of which MM is already involved in on her own (isn't she
just such a good
person?) Big surprise. Now we get to the switch from the first movie
to the second. In the
first, she's good, he's bad, and he doesn't want his "cool" friends to
know that he's starting
to like her. Then, of course, she changes him and we've got the second
movie, where he
abandons his old friends and they're all lovey-dovey and he's all of a sudden
the sweetest,
most thoughtful 18-year-old on the planet. Sorry, but this transformation
just happened
way too fast for me and I just didn't buy it. Maybe it was supposed to be
more gradual and
the movie just didn't do a very good job of showing how much time was
passing. This
movie was okay at times, and I'll admit I cried toward the end, which I guess
shows that it
had succeeded in making me care about the characters, but overall it just didn't
work.
This is not by any means a horrible movie, it just wasn't particularly
good. Wow. I'm not
sure why I wrote so much on this. Oh well. Deal. Grade:
-
023. (23 Feb) Hart's
War (2002, Gregory Hoblit) -- Bruce Willis, Colin Farrell,
Terrence Howard,
Marcel Iures, Cole Hauser, Vicellous Shannon.
Beth: This is a movie about war, but it is not a "war
movie." It is pure drama, so much so that at
times I found
myself longing for just a little comic relief. But the movie is very good
at
doing what it sets out to do, which is to tell a compelling story about humanity
and honor.
The film is set in a German POW camp near the end of WWII, and deals with
relationships
among the soldiers in the camp, with issues of race, murder, and escape plans
guiding the
plot. A few parts of the movie were a little slow-moving, but the acting
was solid and
overall I felt the story really worked. The movie is not without action
(there is a war going
on), but it is certainly not action-packed--it's much smarter than that and
therefore, I
think, much more interesting. Grade: +
024. (8 Mar) Kate
& Leopold (2001, James Mangold) -- Meg Ryan, Hugh Jackman,
Liev Schreiber,
Breckin Meyer, Natasha Lyonne, Bradley Whitford.
Josh: If you read a synopsis of the plot of this movie, you'd think it was a really stupid movie.
It
wasn't that bad, but it was certainly not as good as many other movies I've seen recently.
I'm
starting to realize that Meg Ryan isn't really that good of an actress (the same thing I
thought about Helen Hunt after seeing Curse of the Jade Scorpion) and I've seen enough
Meg Ryan movies that the quirks she has are more annoying than cute. There are plot
holes in this movie that just bugged me, and I'm not talking about the scientific plot holes
that any time-travel movie has. Overall, it's not so much that I disliked this movie: there
just isn't a single thing that stood out as being above mediocre. Grade:
0
Beth: I
liked this movie better than Josh did, but I guess that's not a huge
surprise. There were
your typical "fish out of water" scenarios found in all movies
like this, though I thought this
one did it somewhat better and more cleverly than lesser movies
have. I also liked
how when the movie began the whole time travel aspect had already been
discovered (we
begin in the 19th century with someone from the present-time already
there--which we
don't even realize at first). I thought this was a much better way to
start than to show us
everything that led up to him being in the past. Yeah, there were some
really cliche things
and some really unrealistic things (besides the time travel), but I enjoyed
it. Grade: +
025. (8 Mar) Mulholland
Drive (2001, David Lynch) -- Naomi Watts, Laura Harring, Justin
Theroux.
Josh: If you leave this movie after 90 minutes, you will feel as if it is unresolved. If you stay until
the end, you will se a lot of objectionable stuff, be thoroughly confused, and still feel as if it
is unresolved. Beth and I talked about this movie for a half-hour on the way home and still
didn't have a good grasp of what exactly happened, but a quick run-through of websites with
theories about the film really cleared a lot of things up. I won't say too much else, because
this movie can't be explained very easily. I definitely recommend this movie for its artistic
value, but I also have a heavy reservation about some of the content in the film.
Grade: + (with reservations)
Beth: I doubt there are very many people who can watch this movie for the
first time and
immediately understand what happens in the last quarter or so of the film.
We knew we
were in for something interesting when we watched practically everyone coming
out of the
theater from the previous showing laughing and shaking their heads. We
heard a lot of "I
don't get it" and "what was that?," along with one "that
movie wasn't worth two cents" and
another "what a great movie!" Needless to say, we were somewhat
intrigued and befuddled,
and we went into the theater having been warned that we might not "get
it" right away. We
weren't disappointed. Most of the movie makes sense (for the most part),
then it suddenly
veres off on a tangent and you're left scratching your head and theorizing about
what it all
meant. The warning about objectionable material should definitely be
heeded, and as a
result I would not recommend this movie to just anyone. I understand that
what was
underlying these few scenes was necessary to the plot, but I don't think the
graphicness
used was necessary, and I definitely would have preferred a more implied
approach. But,
as a whole I really liked the movie. I liked trying to figure out what
happened at the end,
and I liked putting all the pieces together (albeit with some help) so that it
all finally made
sense. My advice: close your eyes or look at the ceiling if you don't want
to see the parts
that I didn't want to see, and you'll probably like the movie a whole lot
more.
Grade: + (also with a warning)
026. (12 Mar) The Royal Tenenbaums
(2001, Wes Anderson) -- Gene Hackman, Anjelica Houston, Ben Stiller,
Gwyneth Paltrow, Luke Wilson, Owen Wilson,
Danny Glover, Bill Murray.
Beth: This is a very funny movie. Even many of the parts
that aren't outwardly funny are funny. It is
strange, inventive, and often dark, but always entertaining. It is filled
with quirky characters
played by an all-star cast, and the screenplay deserved the Oscar nomination it
received. It
definitely helps to have a more off-beat sense of humor to appreciate a movie
like this. Grade: +
Josh: