All reviews copyright 2004-2007 by Steve Biodrowski.

Return to Website | Add a Link
A - B    C - D    E - G    H - J    K - L    M - O    P - R    S - T    U - W    X - Z   
A - B
A.I. (Artificial Intelligence, 2001)
Steven Spielberg's attempt to rideo the coat-tails of the late Stanley Kubrick (who was developing the project before his death) is nearly a complete disaster. Frankly, the premise is absurd: what family in their right minds (or even out of them) would want to buy a robot that will live forever but never grow old? Does anybody really want a perpetual pre-teen hanging around with them for the rest of their lives? Unfortunately, the film expects us to empathize with this artificial being, simply because he is played by Haley Joel Osment, the kid from THE SIXTH SENSE, but the script never gives us any reason to care. Spielberg is ponderous in his heavy-handed approach to the psuedo-profound material, and his efforts to pull the heartstrings undermine the already dubious storyline (it's hard to buy into the boy robot's quest for humanity when his toy teddy bear is already treated as a fully realized intelligent being, capable of emotions and understanding). The only thing worse that the long tedious build up is the disappointing conclusion: happiness is spending a day with your (human step-) mother, even if she is just a clone who will die immeidately afterward.
 
Top of Page
C - D
CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND (1977)
Steven Spielberg's second blockbuster movie (two years after JAWS) shows a similar structural liability: the film is exciting when the special effects are on screen, but the character scenes linking them together are overshadowed by the visual razzle-dazzle. In fact, CE3K plays like a virtual remake of its predecessor, with glowing feel-good UFOs to replace the menacing mechanical shark. The government conspiracy storyline is poorly integrated into the story, feeling like a vestige from the Watergate era. Even worse is Spielberg's bizarre psudo-mystical approach, which equates flying saucers with heaven, and the way you get to heaven is by leaving your wife and kids behind (sex and procreation are nasty things that keep you tied to Earth, don't you know, when your soul should be soaring, freed from physical desire). The movie picks up a little bit in the final reel, with the spectacular light show, accompanied by John Williams' innovative score, but you'd probably have just as much fun at a Laserium performance. And just why does the large, glowing, brightly lit mothership case a shadow - at night yet - on the people below?
 
DAY WATCH (2007)
This sequel to NIGHTWATCH - a Russian fantasy film about the eternal battle between Good and Evil - repeats all the mistakes of its predecessor and then some. It is loud, muddled, overdone, slowly paced - in other words, exactly like a bad Hollywood blockbuster, except for the subtitles. What is most disappointing is that NIGHTWATCH seemed to suffer from the need to lay out all the exposition about the rivalry between the Day Watch and the Night Watch (basically secret police with psychic powers who maintain an uneasy truce between the opposing side); with the groundwork laid, one would expect DAY WACH to feature a much smoother narrative. Instead, it is just as bogged down as the original, filled with mindless explosions of action that go nowhere. Never has a film had so much going on with so little actually happening.
 
Top of Page
E - G
ESCAPE FROM L.A. (1996)
John Carpenter's sequel to his fan favorite ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK recreates the formula of its predecessor too closely to be reckoned a complete success: Snake Plisken (Kurt Russell) is back on another involuntary mission, being sent into a big chunk of real estate sealed off from the rest of (civilized) world. The addition of unconvincing CGI effects (e.g., a risable surfing sequence down the Los Angeles River) do not help, but the sequel does improve in one important area: it actually captures some of the look and feel of how Los Angeles might appear after a disaster of Biblica proportions (unlike ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK, which looked like a generic back lot).
 
FRACTURE (2007)
This is a serviceable mystery-thriller that relies on characterization and performances to ease viewers over the bumps created by the twists and turns of the plot. The result is contrived and articifial, but it works as a good genre piece that delivers the requisite elements while also serving up a decent personal story. In the time honored tradition of the mystery genre, credibility is less important than cleverness. Borrowing the structure of the old COLUMBO TV movies, FRACTURE begins with rich, privileged man, Ted Crawford (Hopkins) committing a murder whose plan turns out to be as intricate as the elaborate toy he watches with fascination (a sort of miniature roller-coaster in which marbles rolls and spin along a carefully curved track). With the question of "Who done it?" already out of the way, the rest of the story focuses on how the hero - in this case, a young prosecutor, Willy Beachum, played by Ryan Gosling - will find the fatal flaw in the perpetrator's supposedly air-tight scheme. And as in COLUMBO, the vital clue revealed in the final reel may not be enough to stand up in a real court of law, but in the fantasy world of the film, it is supposed to be enough.
 
Top of Page
H - J
I, ROBOT
Director Alex Proyas created one of the great works of modern science fiction cinema with Dark City in 1998. Alas, this film, while entertaining on a few levels, is no match for that earlier masterpiece. Inspired by the robot stories of Isaac Asimov, I, Robot follows a police detective (Will Smith) convinced that robots are capable of crimes, including murder, even though the famous Three Laws of Robotics (which include not harming a human) seem to prohibit this. The story is interesting; much of the action is exciting; and there are even some halfway decent ideas on hand. Unfortunately, the film succumbs to CGI-excess. The computer-generated robots look phony, especially when they finally go on the attack, and the scenes of robot-vs-robot fighting are totally uninvolving. On a story level, we’re disinterested because they are machines, not human beings who can feel pain; on a visual level, we can see that all the action is being rendered with computer animation—the obvious artificiality destroys any visceral impact.
 
Top of Page
M - O
MIGHTY PEKING MAN (1977)
This Asian rip-off of KING KONG could - by any reasonable standards of good cinema - be considered an absolute bomb, but why be reasonable when the result is so much silly fun? A guy on safari stumbles upon the titular ape-like creature, who has been befriended by a beautiful blonde orphan chick (wearing a leather bikini, of course). She's been living there since her father crash-landed a plane in the middle of the jungle when she was but a child, but she someone managed to raise herself and end up looking like Sheena Queen of the Jungle (which is to say, hot!). The doogus explorer, instead of remaining with this gorgeous woman in an idyllic natureal paradise, brings her and her gargantuan pet back to civilization, with predictably disastrous results. Mighty Peking goes on a rampage after seeing a vile promoter try to rape his jungle woman girlfriend, and the military is called in to put the beast down. Toho Studio's technical team was imported from Japan to handle the special effects. The monkey suit is little better than the one in KING KONG ESCAPES, but the miniatures are far more elaborate than in Toho productions from this era (when budgets were low). All in all, pretty much a cult masterpiece. Originally released in the U.S. (in edited form) as GOLIATHON.
 
NIGHT OF THE COMET (1984)
This low-budget flick about what happens in Los Angeles after a comet kills off most of Earth's population - and renders most of the survivors as zombies - promises little yet delivers quite a bit more than expected, thanks to solid performances that capture just the right cult movie tone. It's all good fun as two sisters face the Apocalypse wondering who will get the last man alive and pondering the fate of school friends who no longer have to worry about those unfinished homework assignments. Cult figure Mary Woronov is strong in a supporting role, and veteran character actor Geoffrey Lewis is also on hand for some laughs. Catherine Mary Stewart makes a fine leading lady - this launched her into a brief run starring in low-budget sci-fi movies and thrillers.
 
Top of Page
P - R
PRINCESS BRIDE, THE (1987)
Rob Reiner's charming film, adapted by William Goldman from his own novel, is a fantasy in the sense that it captures the look and feel of a storybook brought to life. Carey Elwes stars as the bland leading many who disappears, then returns as a mysterious, dashing pirate, searching for his lost love, Princess Buttercup. Somehow, the whimsical artificiality never undermines the romance, and the film really works as a rousing adventure (witness the brilliant swordfight midway through). In the end, the film may be a bit lightweight, but its charm is undeniable.
 
REPULSION (1965)
REPULSION, as good as it is, cannot quite live up to the level of perfection that has been claimed for it. The film is a dark little gem that manages to merge horror conventions with art house aesthetics -- one of the first films to do so (after George Franju’s 1958 EYES WITHOUT A FACE). Using the simplest of resources, director Roman Polanski manages to convey the descent of a disturbed woman (Catherine Denueve) into madness, in a way that invites audience identification even while giving you the creeps. Much of the imagery is memorably revolting (a rotting rabbit) or surreally disturbing (hands emerging from the walls to fondle the hallucinating woman). Still, the film does not quite sustain full tension for its entire length; in its later scenes, it does grow repetitious. (I lost count of the number of times the degenerating character’s psychotic solitude was interrupted by the ringing phone, always shown in the same close-up camera angle. When she finally cuts the phone’s cord, it’s supposed to symbolize her final break with the outside world; instead, you want to cheer, “At last!” This minor quibble is not meant to argue against the film’s reputation as a classic but rather to point out, once again, that certain films seem to get a fairer shake from critics than others. This is especially true in the horror genre, where a little bit of artistry goes a long way toward earning favorable reviews that less ambitious but sometimes equally effective films also deserve.
 
ROBOCOP (1986)
It sounds like a bad TV-movie: a cop named Murphy (Peter Weller) gets killed and is brought back to life as a cyborg superhero, impervious to bullets. But the script by Michael Miner and Ed Neumeier is surprisingly sophisticated, and director Paul Verhoeven serves it up in magnificent style. The film is loaded with outrageous imagery, but (unlike other Verhoeven efforts) it somehow never overloads the narrative, which remains focused on Murphy’s journey back toward reclaiming his humanity. A great action film, this comic-book-type movie is far superior to most comic-to-film adaptations.
 
Top of Page
S - T
SHREK THE THIRD (2007)
The second sequel is much the same mixture as before. Despite some funny moments, the formula is wearing thin. The story has Shrek inheriting the kingdom of Far Away from his father-in-law. Unhappy with the demands of ruling a country, the green ogre seeks out an alternative: Arthur (as in King Arthur). A sub-plot has Shrek concerned about the approaching demands of fatherhood, now that his wifeis pregnant. Needless to say, along the way, Shrek becomes a surrogate father figure for the hapless Arthur and learns that parenting isn't so bad. The syrupy endearing moments seem out of place in a franchise that is basically designed to trash established icons - ins't the point of SHREK that fairy tales are a bunch of baloney? (And by the way, what is King Arthur - a legendary/mythic figure - doing in a fairy tale spoof anyway? He shouldn't be rubbing shoulders with the cast of the Brothers Grimmm.) Despite the uneven quality, this still delivers enough to please undemanding fans. And of course kids will love the baby vomit jokes.
 
SURF'S UP (2007)
This computer-animated comedy about surfing penguins is shot in a mock-documentary style that makes the material seem refreshing and new - this is not just another penguin movie (in the wake of 2006's HAPPY FEET). The story is fairly typical: a small town kid dreams that his special talent will be his passport into the big wide world, where he will triumph and his dreams will come true. Fortunately, the interview format provides ample opportunity for goofing around, and the CGI is absolutely stunning - the waves look so spectacular you feel the swell under your feet. Unlike most cartoons, which record each vocal performance separately, SURF'S UP allowed its voice actors to work together, creating a loose, spontaneous feel absent from most animation. Shia LeBouf is fine as the young lad who makes good, and Jeff Bridges and James Woods stand out among the strong supporting cast.
 
THEM (1954)
This is the archetypal 1950s sci-fi film - all about giant ants that grow to humungous size thanks to residual radiation of nuclear bomb testing. What you might not expect is that the movie is actually quite good, especially in its early sequences, before the menace is revealed, where the every day reality of the police of police trying to solve a string of mysterious disappearances in the desert creates an unnerving sense of suspense. The ants themselves - giant mechanical modles - are not entire convincing, but they work well enough to sustain the tension created by the script. The film features a wonderful final fight between human and ants in the sewars beneath Los Angeles, and atypical for the time, one of the stars meets a grizzy fate. James Arness stars as an FBI agent on the case, and Edmund Gwenn is excellent as the absent-minded scientist.
 
Top of Page
U - W
The Water Horse
This entertaining film came and went from theatres faster than it should have, perhaps because the advertising campaign emphasized the whimsical attributes to such an extent that audiences expected THE WATER HORSE to be frivolous family fun, something to rent for the kiddies to watch at home. In fact, Robert Nelson Jacobs’ screenplay (based on a book by Dick King-Smith, author of Babe) is pitched at a more adult level, with a sad child at the center and many somber moments addressing the loss of a father during war time. This sober coming-of-age story is balanced with the fantasy element: the discovering and nurturing of a “water horse,” a mythical beast that grows up to be the famous Loch Ness Monster. Director Jay Russell does not quite balance these contrasting story elements, but he keeps things moving along fairly nicely, so that we are able to sit back and enjoy the fun without ever losing sight of the sadness underneath. He is aided by some beautiful location photography, and a cast manages to play both the fantasy and the reality scenes with equal aplomb, even if there is more depth to the loch than to the characters.
 
URBAN LEGENDS (1998)
This is just another post-SCREAM fest desperately in need of a gimmick to distinguish it from its progenitor. The result is a formulaic, cliche-ridden genre piece that never develops any identity of its own, and in fact runs out of urban legends and ultimately resorts to standard stalk-and-slash tactics (including a predictable “twist” ending). In keeping with the current trend, the killer when finally revealed is not particularly interesting or frightening, and the motivation for murder is weak: revenge for a fatal prank based on an urban legend. Okay, that explains killing the two people responsible, but what about everyone else? There is a last minute lip-service explanation by the murderer to Natalie (Alicia Witt) about killing “all your friends,” but most of the victims were unsympathetic jerks that Natalie never liked anyway – they are there merely to pad out the running time with gratuitous slaughter. There are a few bright spots, including Robert Englund’s scene as a professor discussing urban legends, and THE X-FILES’ John Neville (as the school principal) gets one or two laughs with lines expressing contempt for students. Director Blank's work is professional enough, but he seems completely ignorant of his scenario’s shortcomings, dishing it all out as though the multiple absurdities have not destroyed credibility beyond any hope for suspense. And by the way, have we not had enough films set in college that are aimed at high school viewers? This idiotic pandering to teen fantasies (all booze and sex with nary a test in sight) is way past insufferable.
 
VAN HELSING (2001)
Hugh Jackman stars as the titular vampire hunter in this alleged attempt to take the classic Universal movie monsters and update them into a modern franchise. The result actually looks and acts a lot more like a live-action adaptation of the two Vampire Hunter D Japanese anime films, with Jackman’s character re-imagined as an action hero, instead of a the philosopher-scientist-metaphysician invented by Bram Stoker in Dracula. One big problem is that the film crams all the monsters it can think of (except the Mummy—writer-director Stephen Sommers having already mined that tomb in two previous films) into one story—which has the unfortunate side-effect of revealing how much those monsters have in common, resulting in a far too many redundant special effects scenes that pile up into a big heap instead of building to an exciting climax. (For example, Mr. Hyde, Dracula, and the Wolfman are all shape shifters. After you’ve shown Hyde morphing into Jekyll in the first reel, it’s hardly amazing to see men morph into wolves or vampires morph into bats late on.) Big, loud, but seldom interesting, Van Helsing has just enough decent moments to hold interest for its running time, but mostly the good stuff is buried underneath an avalanche of CGI.
 
VILLAGE, THE (2004)
Like UNBREAKABLE, this is another major disappointment from the writer-director of the excellent THE SIXTH SENSE. THE VILLAGE is not completely awful, but it comes closer than one would like to admit. Although there are a few good scenes and some strong performances, the film suffers from unbearably slow pacing, and much of the drama is uninvolving. There are some creepy, suspenseful moments, but the film doesn't really build up to them - it simply serves them up at irregular intervals and hopes the audience will sit still long enough to get to them. The problem seems to lie at the heart of the film's premise. What is the background of the mysterious Village? Where is the Village located? In what time period does the story take place? All of this is kept secret from viewers, although (it turns out) the older inhabitants (i.e., the founders of the Village) know perfectly well. This might have been tolerable if the story maintained its focus. Instead, it rambles, trying to deal with sub-lots and character issues only tangentially connected to the central mystery. Structurally, the story does manage to maintain a minimal level of interest by planting clues and presenting unexpected twists and surprise revelations. But these twists end up raising more questions than they answer. In effect, you must wait through the whole film to find out what the premise really is, and then when you finally know -- the movie is over! And nothing changes -- no lessons learned, no dramatic upheavals. Just back to the status quo.
 
WHITE NOISE (2005)
This reasonably ambitious attempt at creating a horror film with some dramatic weight collapses due to weak script construction. Michael Keaton stars as Jonathan Rivers, a successful businessman whose wife Ann (Chandra West) disappears. WIHTE NOISE begins like a mystery with dramatic undertones (dealing with the loss of a loved one, who might or might not have been murdered). Then the film moves into feel-good territory when Keaton’s character comes to believe that he can contact his dead wife through EVP. The script seems to want to say something about the psychological dangers of refusing to let go (Rivers obsession with his new electronic toys is clearly supposed to be unhealthy), but the idea is pushed aside in favor of turning the film into a mechanical thriller. The final revelation of the real culprit is a hackneyed cliché; the character is so peripheral to the action that the “surprise” is totally unsatisfying, feeling like a desperate attempt to provide an un-guessable twist. Overall, this is a decent time-waster that more or less holds your attention, but by the time it’s over you realize that it doesn’t add up to much of anything.
 
Top of Page
X - Z
YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN (1975)
This spoof was a blockbuster when it opened, but it has dated faster than the films it targets: Universal's horror classic from the 1930s. Shot in black-and-white, with the familiar Kenneth Strickfaden mad scientist laboratory equipment (the same stuff seen in the 1931 FRANKENSTEIN), it captures the look and feel of the old movies while skewering them with an endless arsenal of joke. The humor is fairly effective – as long as it stays focused on its source material, but Mel Brooks can't resist wandering from the target, opting for a hit-and-miss scattergun approach. The painfully unfunny tie-and-tails duet between Frankenstein and his creation is supposed to be funny because it's so off-the-wall, but it just stands out like a sore thumb, making you wonder why it’s in the film. YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN is almost a reactionary movie. Gory color horror films had been in vogue for over a decade, and the 1973 FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN (a.k.a. ANDY WARHOL'S FRANKENSTEIN) had taken sex and violence to new levels - in 3D, no less. By adopting the style and trappings of classic Gothic horror, Mel Brooks and Gene Wilder seemed to be making a statement in favor of the older films - even as they were poking fun at them; unfortunately, they succumb to their own self-congratulatory zeal. Brooks and Wilder may love the old Universal horror films, but they don't necessarily have the talent to handle their subject matter seriously, so instead they take the easy path of parody, which conveniently masks any cinematic shortcomings (i.e., if it looks lame, that means it was meant to be funny). Although Wilder and Brooks enjoyed collaborating, their approach is like oil and water: Wilder wants to do the sad clown thing -- pathos and humor -- and Brooks wants to do jokes about bathrooms, large breasts, and enormous genitals.
 
Top of Page




Return to Website | Add a Link powered by Powered by Bravenet bravenet.com