| Current Reviews |
| Review Archives |
| CCN Main |
| CCN Archives |
| CCN History |
| FAQ |
| Contact |
|
|
 |
| Feh. It looks nice, it has the right soundtrack, but for me, wasn't nearly snappy or clever enough. I mean, you've got all the star power in the world, and I felt like too often, they weren't letting these stars (Julia, George, Brad, etc.) do their thing. Is it wrong for me to think this movie would have been better if it was a little more like The Cannonball Run? For some strange reason, that's the kind of fun tone which I thought was missing from this movie. The procedural aspect of the film was done better in last summer's The Score. The fun caper element wasn't as fun or caperish as it needed to be. Instead, you get a perfectly pleasant and utterly unchallenging diversion, with few surprises, a wasted surplus of super star power, and what has to be considered a missed opportunity. | |
|
|
 |
| Let this be a lesson to all: Never judge a movie by its music video. I did, and I paid the price. I guess it was my distaste for Christina Aguilera, Pink, Mya, and Li’l Kim that made me think I wanted nothing to do with Moulin Rouge!, and I’m here to say, I was dead wrong. This is a fantastic film, fun and lively, a kaleidoscope of ideas and colors and music and, of course, truth, beauty, freedom and love. Ewan McGregor is fantastic, surpassed only by Nicole Kidman, who just tears this movie up. The Baz Luhrmann style (Romeo + Juliet, Strictly Ballroom) reaches new heights here, and I can’t wait to see what he brings us next. As far as DVD value goes, this one has a huge assortment of extra features that I only started to explore. But people who want extras won’t be disappointed. I especially liked the “Follow the Green Fairy” feature, a way to freshen up a second or third viewing of the film, by clicking “enter” every time a huge green fairy appears on the screen. This “zaps” you out of the film, and in to a short behind-the-scenes featurette showing you all stages of production relating to the scene you’re watching. All in all, a great film, presented on a great DVD. Fun viewing for the whole family! (At least, for my whole family, who we tested it on this Christmas.) |
|
|
|
|
| How can a movie be three hours long, and still too short? This one manages that rare feat. When the final fade-out came, I was game for at least another hour. Such is the curse of this trilogy, but folks, this is one hell of a “Part One.” I cannot wait until next December. So what did they get right? Tough for me to say; I’ve never read the LOTR Trilogy (nor “The Hobbit,” for that matter) which is unusual, seeing as I’m such a big sci-fi/fantasy dweeb. But from this Tolkien novice’s perspective, it’s all here. There was maybe one too many “Run, Frodo, run!” scenes – you’d think, after about the fifth time, something might actually catch up with him. But the acting is great, the effects are spectacular, and the film has a very distinctive “epic” quality that was sadly missing from, oh, say, Star Wars Episode One: The Phantom Menace, or Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. Also, director Peter Jackson’s Middle Earth looks real in a way George Lucas’s modern Star Wars long-ago worlds (based on a movie and three teaser trailers for Episode II) do not. The amount of location shooting, and the locations themselves, provide a very needed and very welcome grounding. This may be the movie that disproves the Lucas Sci-Fi/Fantasy film theory that these films are just people saying words in front of pretty backgrounds that you can add later through CGI. Certainly, the effects ball is back in ILM’s court. (I've already given up on Lucas's characters and writing.) The only thing keeping this from being a five-monkey masterpiece is the unfortunate ending, or lack thereof, necessitated by the structure of this project. I was hoping for a little more resolution – but I’ll just have to wait, for 2002 and 2003. Can I buy advance tickets now? |
|
|
|
 |
| 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. | |
|
|
 |
| 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? | |
|
|
 |
| 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. | |
|
|
|
| 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.) | |
|
|
 |
| Yeah, I'm a Star Trek fan, but so what? Patrick Stewart's one man production of A Christmas Carol is absolutely fantastic, and a perfect way to get more in touch with the spirit of the Christmas season. What makes it special? This is no simple dramatic reading. Stewart commands the stage with great vigor, acting out more than 40 different parts, and using a few simples props (a table, a chair, a desk) to convey a wide variety of locations. You'll see the world of A Christmas Carol come to life before your eyes, as Stewart masterfully draws you in to the story of Ebeneezer Scrooge like never before. Too often, modern versions seem to rely on the admittedly compelling tale of Scrooge's quest for personal redemption, but Stewart brings much needed depth to the original story's strong statement against poverty. If you haven't seen it, you're missing out. If you have seen it, all other Christmas Carols suddenly seem a bit lacking. It's that good ... and powerful. Not that it's an entirely humorless affair. Far from it! Stewart's eyes, as the Narrator, twinkle when they need to, and there are several moment that draw extended laughs from the audience, including a sequence that in the three times I've seen the show has never failed to produce a sustained ovation. The show is headed for a sold-out run on Broadway this holiday season (2001), but make a note to check every year around November. Cruise a Star Trek news website, and see if there's chatter about whether or not Patrick is doing the show this year. He usually does it in Los Angeles and New York, and I believe London. Or, you could look for his Scrooge role on TNT; they're showing his multi-actor adaptation a lot. It's also out on both DVD and video. Or, go to your favorite bookstore (brick and mortar or online) and buy yourself a copy of the audio adaptation. Brightens up a drive to work any time of year!
Humbug-fu. Scrooge-fu. Pudding-fu. Monkey-Plex says, check it out. |
|
|
|
|
| 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. | |
|
|
|
| Count me among those who weren’t at all disappointed in this film. In fact, I had a great time! But did this film surprise me in any way? Not once. A mild critique, but I found it ironic that a film about young wizards lacked a certain magic. Remember, Warner Bros. had a “contest” among big-name directors, making them try out for the job, after Steven Spielberg passed? I sure wish Terry Gilliam (ex-Python, directed “Brazil,” etc.) had won. Newsweek says he was J. K. Rowling’s pick, but the studio went with the ultra-safe Chris Columbus, because “Home Alone” and “Bicentennial Man” were just so magical! Still, I’ll be there for “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets” next fall. And you will too. | |
|
|
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! | |
Browse the Archives or
Search past reviews:
