We're going to the movies ... at the Monkey-Plex! Carrying over at least one theme from the last page, here's a look at current and past movie releases, rated on a scale of one to five monkeys. Five monkeys, of course, is best! (Movies with a non-aqua color background were seen on video, not in the theatre, as all movies should be!)
| Film | Rating | Comments |
|
|
 |
A disappointment for me. Not as funny as "A Bug's Life," not nearly as well structured as "Toy Story 2," this is easily the fourth place picture of the four Pixar animated features. That doesn't mean it's bad - it's still better than "Shrek," for example. But Pixar has set the bar so high, I don't know if any of their future projects will be able to compare. I felt this film was lacking in the "heart" department, an area these filmmakers have nailed in the past. Still, it's a visually fun picture, and nothing I say will stop you from seeing it, so go on, and do your consumeristic duty. |
|
|
or
|
Here’s a movie about which there are two schools of thought. If you’re a near fetishist for any- and every-thing John Cusack or Kate Beckinsale related, you’re going to love this film. If you love both of them (and have for years, as I have) you’re going to really love it. If, on the other hand, you have no special attachment to the actors involved, and you’re not willing put up with a movie that stretches credibility so far past the breaking point as to move in to the realm of ridiculous fantasy, then you’re not going to dig it. Still, as escapist fare goes, this is pretty pleasant stuff. Note to Molly Shannon: You almost did it! For 90% of Molly’s part in this film, she’s playing a character. And she’s good. But late in the film, she apparently can’t resist turning in to “Molly Shannon,” the tired SNL cliche’ we’ve seen her do a hundred other times (as Mary Katherine Gallagher, joyologist Helen Madden, etc.). C’mon, Molly – next time, play a character all the way! |
|
|
 |
The big question surrounding this movie - do you have to be a Kevin Smith fanatic to enjoy it? I think not. I've seen only "Chasing Amy," and found plenty to laugh at here. The layered effect of the comedy works well; if you DO know everything about Kevin's past work ("Clerks," "Dogma," "Mallrats," and Ben Affleck), you'll probably like this even more than I did. Oh, and for those of you offended by nasty language - don't go. (That means you, my beloved Grandma, who thought the language in "The Jerk" was too strong. And that was back in 1979.) |
|
|
|
Well, I liked it. The girl I took thought it was just "okay," and you might too, unless you're digging the ultra-cool vibe put out by Thora Birch. I continue to be very impressed with Steve Buscemi, and hope someday, he will be with me, as well. Yeah, it's based on a comic book, and no, I haven't read it. But now, I want to. |
|
|
 |
What do you get when you make a comedy that's overly dramatic, or a drama that's not too funny? This film! Even though the film is uninspiring, Jennifer Aniston emerges mostly unscathed. Note to the filmmakers: If you're going to have your hero become a big jerk rock-n-roller, it might help if he was at least a little bit charismatic to begin with. The "hero's journey" from "bitter moron" to "irredeemable lout" is a short one. This film somehow manages to take a great idea and kill it. Granted, mocking 80's metal was done to perfection in This Is Spinal Tap. Is that why this movie had to be so damn serious? |
|
|
|
Definitely my sleeper pick of the summer. Here's a funny movie, a very funny movie, that's getting sadly overlooked. Don't make that mistake. It's got possibly the best use of Jon Lovitz in a movie, ever. John Cleese is fantastic. Rowan Atkinson continues to amaze, here playing a fey Italian narcoleptic. (That caused one of the funniest lines in our theater - Atkinson's character goes to sleep suddenly, and a college-age "dude" behind us said to his girlfriend, with great confidence, "Oh, I see. He's a necrophiliac.") And the timing is impeccable. Not once does a scene go on too long. If you've missed it, definitely look for it on home video. You won't be disappointed. |
|
|
|
A cute family film, perhaps a little too adult to be appreciated by the just-about 6 year old I attended with, but I'm guessing it would play well with the 8 to 12 year old crowd. Julie Andrews is in fine voice, thankfully, and Anne Hathaway (whom I liked an awful lot in last year's under-appreciated and canceled Fox series "Get Real") is quite able to carry this often amusing offering from director Garry Marshall. (And, as always in Garry Marshall's films, there's good, bonus Hector Elizando and Larry Miller.) Kudos, too, to one of the more talented teen pop icons Mandy Moore, for her courage in taking the role of a complete teen bitch. Every good teen movie needs one, and in taking the part, Mandy only serves to further reinforce the growing body of opinion that she, not Christina, not Britney, and dear God not Jessica Simpson, will be the entertainment industry survivor over the long haul. |
|
|
|
The animated stuff was great. The live action stuff was really, really unappealing. I would have been okay with an entirely animated movie - that world was so perfectly brought to life and realized by the artists and voice actors, I found myself disappointed when we dipped back out to more Farrelly Brothers' grossness with the (deliberately) freakish and frightening Bill Murray. Overall, since the movie is about a 70-30 animation/live action split, I'll let me fondness for the cartoon stuff carry the day on this rating. |
|
|
|
Marlon Brando acts! And acts quite nicely (and relatively normally) in a movie some have billed as featuring the three greatest actors of their generations (Brando, Robert DeNiro, and Ed Norton). The jury's still out on Norton, though he is talented and fun. But the emphasis in this caper movie is on procedure, not character. If you don't like safe cracking minutiae, you probably won't like this flick. I did, however, and to me, it was worth it just to see Brando prove that even today, he's more than just the sum of countless bad Brando impressions. |
|
|
 |
I love John Cusack. I love Julia Roberts. I love Billy Crystal. And I think Catherine Zeta-Jones (Douglas) is fantastic. So why did I not like this movie very much? Too cute when it needed to be smart, neither all-out Hollywood devastation, as in "The Player," nor all-out romance, nor all-out comedy ... I thought this film dabbled in all, but failed to commit to any clear course of storytelling style. For me, that undercut the whole enterprise, which, in fairness, was filled with wonderfully talented and entertaining performers, all the way down to the bit parts. |
|
|
 |
Caught this bad boy on video while helping my friend Frank recuperate from hand surgery. Fortunately, there was no need to high five at the conclusion. There were, however, several good laughs, more than usual in recent Saturday Night Live inspired films. I think it's safe to say that if you think the Ladies Man sketch is funny, you'll probably be happy with this film. There are certainly worse ways to pass 84 minutes. |
|
|
|
Hey, a teen movie! Another vidpic with the recovering best friend. I've always had a soft spot for this genre of film, even though my teen years are, gasp, more than a decade in the past. I will say I liked this film better than "American Pie," which seems to be the current standard of teen flicks. There's a lot less sex in this film, of course, but hey, there was a lot less sex in just about every film. Seth Green impresses, as he did in a more adult role in "America's Sweethearts." Keep an eye on him. |
|
|
 |
Feh. See, the problem for me is, I have a compulsive need to have my science fiction actually make sense. And very little here does, although the tale is told with Tim Burton's undeniable flair. On the whole, I really don't think I got my monkey's worth. That's why this film only rates two "humans." (See, it's a surprise twist on the usual film ratings here at the Monkey-Plex! Clever, no?) |
|
|
|
A lot of people I've talked to (and even if I haven't talked to you, you may be one of them) seem to actively dislike this movie. I can't figure out why. Is it because they expected a Kubrick/Spielberg collaboration to be twice as good as any other movie? What we have here is an interesting, and at times, provocative fairy tale, told with breathtaking beauty and skill. But a lot of people seem to hate this movie, and I don't know why. I liked it, I was moved by it, and I recommend it. |
|
|
 |
Can we talk about what a disappointment this movie was? First off, within the first 60 seconds of the film, there's a special effect shot that looked so fake, my eyes actually widened, as a realized we were seeing a movie filmed "on the cheap." (Hint: When the camera switches from a far away shot of two people (doing an activity) to a close-up ... it's incredibly obvious the close up is filmed in an entirely different location.) Second off, there's absolutely no respect for either the audience, or the earlier films in the series. This movie breaks up a popular couple from an earlier film, kills off the most popular dinosaur from an earlier film, and puts the current crop of characters in situations so repeatedly ridiculous that I actually laughed out loud during some supposedly "dangerous" situations. Hey, if you don't like the characters, settings, or dinosaurs from the earlier JP films, then for God's sake, don't put them in the sequel! A complete waste of time and effort. (Well, not that much time. The movie is only about 85 minutes long.) |
|
|
|
Continuing a theme of movies with a colon (or at least, an implied colon) in the title, I found this movie utterly fascinating from frame one. Note that I did not say "utterly good" - there are certainly parts that are standard issue, computer-generated clichés, especially in some of the dialogue. But all in all, how many movies will you ever see that make you go, "Wow!" in almost every scene? A side note: Once, about fifteen years ago, I asked Rick Sternbach, primary starship designer for the "Star Trek" series, if we'd see a "Trek" ship that was entirely computer generated. (This was after "The Last Starfighter" had come out.) He laughed and dismissed the notion, saying models looked so good, so right, they would never need to be replaced with CGI ships. Flash forward, and the new Enterprise (for the upcoming UPN series of the same name) exists ONLY in the computer. No filming model at all. While that's all well and good, what are they going to display at the Smithsonian some day? A stack of DVD-ROM's? Anyhow, will "Final Fantasy"-style animation ever take over for filming actual actors on actual sets? I've learned from Sternbach's mistake, and would never say never. But don't get the wrong idea. This film isn't trying to replicate reality. You are, however, seeing the dawning of a new reality in the movie biz, and it's certainly worth checking out. |
|
|
|
I remember Indiana Jones. Indiana Jones was a friend of movie-goers the world over. And you, Lara Croft, are no Indiana Jones. And neither is your film. From the opening scene (which turns out to be a disappointing, false-jeopardy cheat) to the closing mumbo-jumbo, none of this made much sense to me. Does Angelina Jolie look great? Yep. But from her opening triple somersault back flip - where, on the last rotation, there's a slight "hiccup," either from an unsteady wire or a sloppy bit of CGI - to the closing crashes of the universe, I didn't believe one frame of this film. Unfun when it should have been a gas. A missed opportunity. |
|
|
|
Boy, there was so much about this film I wanted like. And there was plenty up there on screen: An animated, action-adventure film, with no singing animals or forced musical interludes. But I felt this film confused "everyone talks very quickly and overlapping" for "excitement." There were several times I just couldn't understand the dialog. (And I saw this flick at Disney's showcase El Capitan theatre, in fantastic digital projection, so at least the film looked great, even if the sound was often muddied.) In no way should this been seen as a discouragement for the Disney folks; these are the kind of animated films I want to see. But as it was, one plot twist involving the vast majority of the characters made it extremely difficult for me to care about them later in the film. (If you've seen it, you know what I mean.) Also, the CGI animation didn't blend in well enough with the traditional animation. If a shot screams "CGI WAS USED TO MAKE THIS SPECTACULAR TWIRLING CAMERA PAN," then I think you've got problems. |
|
|
|
Neither as bad as you've heard it is, nor as good as you hope it will be. To be honest, this movie surprised me by not being nearly as bad as many people seem to say it is. Don't get me wrong: This is by no means a "good movie," but it is a good summer blockbuster popcorn flick. Admit it; you're going for the special effects, and that part completely delivers. Note: I saw this film at the Universal City IMAX theatre. You should try to see if it's playing on an IMAX near you. Definitely worth it. |
|
|
|
It must be just me, because everyone loves this film. I do not. At its worst, "Shrek," with its Mike Myers Scottish accent and bodily function humor, reminds me (unpleasantly) of the least funny part of the last "Austin Powers" movie - Fat Bastard. This is Animated Fat Bastard, it appears, and while the kids must love all the gross stuff, to me, it was lazy, "let's see what we can get away with!" type stuff. There's no heart here, certainly not of the type exhibited by the far superior Pixar CGI films. And Eddie Murphy plays Mushu (from "Mulan") ... again ... and people are falling all over themselves comparing him to Robin Williams in "Aladdin?" Sir, I know Robin Williams' Genie. Robin Williams' Genie is a friend of mine. And Donkey is no Robin Williams' Genie. Plus, the much-heralded shots at the Walt Disney studios seem really flat, juvenile, and, the worst crime of all, not that funny. Other than that, how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln? |
|
|
 |
If I tell you about it, even a little bit, you'll know more than you should going in to the theater. Don't listen to other people talk about it ... just get yourself in to a theater and see it. And yes, the monkeys are facing a different direction than normal for a reason. |
|
|
|
I am not at all opposed to a film that offers a scathing critique on the pre-packaged and over-marketed crap that passes for popular entertainment today. I just don't think the best way to do it is to make a pre-packaged and over-marketed piece of crap. This movie tried to be sly, and failed by only about one billion percent. A big, big disappointment. Rachael Leigh Cook - call me, we'll talk about how to save your career. And, uh, other things, if you want ... |
|
|
 |
The tiger crouched, the dragon hid, and all was right with the world. I realize now I'm going to have to tweak my rating system, because according to me, this movie was just slightly lower rated than "Return to Me." Well, heck, at least everyone in that film spoke English. Actually, the foreign dialogue was exactly zero problem in this film, and it made for a wonderful, exciting, moving and lyrical night at the movies. But was it the best picture of the year? I'll see the other two nominees I've missed so far, and let you know. |
|
|
|
Hey, there's nothing wrong with this film, except it isn't "Spinal Tap," and nothing will ever match the sheer joy of seeing the pitch-perfect birth of the "mockumentary" form. But this one, from some of the same troupe, is, like "Waiting for Guffman," funnier than most of the alleged "comedies" (do not wait for my review of "Dude, Where's My Car?") which pollute movie theaters today. By no means a bad film, "Best In Show" is in fact very, very funny, and a film you should definitely catch on video, if you've missed it in the theater. |
|
|
|
A definite three and a half monkey movie, if only for the sheer perversity of seeing Disney animate David Spade’s only character (snide, sneering, smarter-than-you jackass) as a llama. The film says “Music by Sting,” but I didn’t hear much music by Sting. It’s got a cool, funky look, and surely breaks more of the traditional animation rules than anything Disney has put out in a long time. This may be the first Disney animated feature that knows it’s a Disney animated feature, and that’s not entirely a bad thing. |
|
|
|
There were about ten to fifteen minutes two-thirds of the way through the film where it really, really was working. But the rest left me a bit flat. Jim Carrey is great, doing, as one friend pointed out, a bizarre mix of Boris Karloff and Sean Connery. But overall (and this is the minority opinion, I realize), this whole project falls under the heading of “Who Asked For It?” We’ve got a great storybook version, and a classic animated version ... why this? Why not invest $100 million in creating a new timeless fairy tale? I’m just worried that a whole generation of kids will grow up thinking THIS is the real Grinch story; but you and I know it ain’t. |
|
|
|
M. Night – say “good night,” if you don’t stop making movies that are so ... damn ... deliberate. Empires rose and fell during some of your shots, and the pacing here ruins what is really an interesting idea. Also, will all of your films have an O. Henry twist at the end? Just wondering. On the other hand, I dug an awful lot of this film. It was just spooky enough for a guy like me, who doesn’t usually like fright fests. A frustratingly mixed bag. |
|
|
|
Is it as good as you've been led to believe? Probably not. Is it as funny as "There's Something About Mary?" Definitely not. Is it pretty funny, with at least two scenes that brought tears to my eyes from laughing? On that count, yes. Yay for Ben Stiller. And Robert DeNiro -- quit it with the teasing cameos on "Saturday Night Live" and just host the damn thing already! |
|
|
|
Without a doubt, the very best claymation chicken movie ever made. Still, it was a tad less clever than I'd hoped, but perhaps I had unrealistic expectations. Nevertheless, there are plenty of laughs for us big kids, and this is a fine, fine film. |
|
|
|
Hey, they finally did a superhero movie
*right*! As I sat in the theater, and the final trailer played before
the start of this film, I said one final "Hope They Didn't F*** It Up"
Prayer, and made the Sign of the X. And what do you know? They
didn't!
Likeable characters, an interesting story, great effects when called for, and just about pitch-perfect acting from everyone involved make this one hell of a fun summer film. Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan are, quite obviously, working on a much different "acting" level than Rebecca Romijn-Stamos, but you know what? It all works here, and that's a tribute to director Bryan Singer. This movie just looks right, all the way through. Sure, it takes a while to get going, but by the final confrontation, everything is working at peak performance: effects, action, even pithy byplay! (So much so, the one line of "pith" that doesn't quite work really stood out to me; it needed one more re-write!) Note: I'm a comic book fan, but I have never read an X-Men comic. I know enough about the X-Men and Marvel Universe to catch some, but not nearly all, of the little touches the filmmakers deliberately included as a knowing nod to the fan community. But what I did catch, I liked. Wow, filmmakers who not only respect their target audience, but actually make a film that manages to appeal to them, as well as the general public? Revolutionary. Someone send Rick Berman a copy of this film to prove that it can (and should) be done with his "Star Trek" franchise. |
|
|
|
Mission: Impossible? No, it’s
more like, “Mission: Not That Difficult, but Filmed In That Uniquely John
Woo Style As To Make It Seem Impossible.” (That, of course, wouldn’t
fit on the poster.) And hey, I was right about my nagging
suspicion that the entirety of Sir Anthony Hopkins’ performance was featured
in the trailer.
Strangely slow at times, this is yet another M:I movie that doesn’t live up to the possibility of its premise. Strike two, Mr. Cruise. Next time, try for more teamwork, more gadgets, more far out spy stuff, and hey, wouldn’t an appearance by, say, Martin Landau be just about the greatest thing ever? Maybe the inevitable M:I 3 will be better. |
|
|
|
Samuel L. Jackson is the black private
dick, yadda yadda ... but as two of my co-workers pointed out, did we really
need him, when Richard Roundtree is still looking “so fine”? (Their description,
not mine.) Ah, what the heck.
Jackson is a worthy successor to the Shaft mantle, the action moves along quite nicely, and the “badass-ometer” is set at just about the right level. This is good summer movie fun, with the best soundtrack out there. |
|
|
|
As I watched this movie, one word kept
coming to mind again and again: Why? Why make this movie?
Why did Robert DeNiro agree not only to produce it, but to star in it as
well? Sure, the original source material is rightly hailed as a true
TV classic, but this pale rip-off tries way, way too hard to capture that
unique voice the original series excelled at.
Why didn’t anyone look at the script and realize that no matter how well the shooting went, there was no chance that this would turn out to be a good movie? The only part of this movie that was fine: the voices of Rocky and Bullwinkle. June Foray (the original and only Rocky) and Keith Scott (Bullwinkle) do fantastic work. Keith is nearly indistinguishable from his mentor Bill Scott (no relation), who passed away a few years ago. I just wish Keith’s outstanding work was showcased in a better film. |
|
|
 |
Yes, only two "dinos" for this movie
which looks fantastic, but lacks heart. Much too much time is spent
going "ooh, that's a cool CGI effect;" meanwhile, the movie is almost over
when you realize that you still don't care about any of the characters,
and whether or not they survive or become extinct.
Also - this could have been a cool, kick-ass, ground-breaking "non-talking animal" movie. If Disney had gone the Discovery Channel/documentary route here, that would have sold the believablility of the situation. But it's hard to take things seriously when you've got a pre-historic lemur of some type preening around and calling himself "The Love Monkey." Dinosaurs don't talk, and if they hadn't in this film, it would have been much, much cooler. Fantastic analysis of this Disney Dino-failure can be found by following this link to an aricticle by Disney expert Jim Hill, as part of a subsection of the essential Disneyland Information Guide site. Thank me later. |
|
|
|
A solid, three-monkey movie.
(And don't you think that should be the quote they use in the ads?
"A solid three-monkey movie, says Colin Campbell, of the Monkey-Plex.")
Mom Campbell actually picked this one out as her Mother's Day film.
I don't know if I should be disturbed about Mom's taste in films, or accept
her explanation about "cute and sweaty sailors" at face value.
Either way, this was a well executed, if somewhat surprisingly brief, World War II sub flick. It's no "Das Boot," but then again, what is? |
|
|
|
Julia Roberts, cute and sassy. It takes a while to really get cooking, but when it does, the story is a very well executed "small fry versus the big corporate machine" legal film. Catch it on video. |
|
|
|
Russell Crowe is great as his "sullen soldier" character, and Rome looks wonderful. But why was this story so damn uninvolving? Sound and fury, signifying ... what? Overrated in my book; you make your own call. |
|
|
|
The best use yet of Jenna Elfman in a film. Ben Stiller is damn great, and Ed Norton is tremendously appealing. Funny, smart, with several laugh out loud moments. Try to catch this one before it's wiped away by the summer blockbusters, if only for the character of "Don." (It's little touches like Don that make this movie so fun.) |
|
|
|
John Cusack is tremendous, as always, and the supporting cast also shines. Caveat: My best friend managed a record store for several years, and a lot of this stuff played pretty close to home for me. |
|
|
|
Bonnie Hunt writes, directs, and acts. I am in love with Bonnie, and more importantly, in tune with her sense of humor. This is one hell of a great date movie. David Duchovny is even, gasp, interesting and involved. An absolutely wonderful supporting cast helps Duchovny and Minnie Driver shine. Great, romantic, funny and smart. |
|
http://home.earthlink.net/~jenolen/movies.htm |
 |
|
mammals have visited Colin Campbell
Web Pages, and you're one of them.
©2001 All Rights Reserved
