The_BIGGEST_Critic Reviews

The Amateurs (2005)

Fun movie with a lot of heart

[7/10 · 20 February 2008]

The Amateurs (formerly known in the USA as The Moguls) is a really fun, nicely directed movie with heart. Slightly odd, quirky characters banding together to make a porno movie, and getting much more in the process.

There were very few stereotypes in this movie (Ernest, played by Troy Brenna was one) and the story was unpredictable and fun to follow. I appreciate that many of the characters, whom you would normally presume are just there as comic relief, really become significant for other reasons. Some scenes were flat out hilarious (Watch Eileen Brennan in the few scenes she's given).

The matter of fact way that the characters approach making their film provides some of the great moments in this movie.

I highly recommend "The Amateurs" because it's just a great way to spend an evening.

The BIGGEST Critic

The Lake House (2006)

Fun idea, but plausibility, script, chemistry and weak ending

[4/10 · 10 October 2006]

The concept behind "The Lake House" is a good one: A architect, who's father built a lake house, moves in only to find that he's receiving cryptic letters in his mail box from a woman who claims to have lived in the same house two years in the future! They begin a future-past penpal relationship and fall in love. But can they possibly ever get past the time-travel issues and meet in person? The idea is a fun one to play with and the execution is pretty decent, but there are some script writing blunders and plausibility problems that frustrate the viewer (see spoiler notes at The Biggest Critic website), as well as a tepid ending that doesn't nearly live up to the rest of the movie.

Sandra Bullock works reasonably well in this movie as Kate Forster, though she plays her character a little more morosely than I think she should have. Perhaps she was trying to get the point across that this woman has basically given up on ever finding a mate? Keanu Reeves does a yeoman's job of playing Alex Wyler, an architect and Kate's love interest. I thought this role would be better done by John Cusack, but Reeves was satisfactory (and was even able to show some acting ability in this movie). I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that Reeves and Bullock were reunited primarily because of their work in "Speed". Whatever. Christopher Plummer made a cameo appearance as Alex' father, but the role wasn't particularly notable for anything except that the father, also an architect, is the one who built the lake house.

There are always plausibility problems in time travel movies, and this one is no exception. The only thing a scriptwriter can do is try to minimize the damage by accounting for as many of the potential problems as possible. Unfortunately, there are some real doozies in "The Lake House" that present brain-scrambling issues for the viewer, especially at the end of the movie (again, see spoiler notes). That means that you better go in knowing that you're going to be frustrated if you think too much in this movie. The tone and pace of the movie is good, and the chemistry is okay between the lead characters...not great, just okay. Production values are high, as one would expect in a A production. The ending was weak. After all that happened in the movie, and all the buildup of suspense (will they meet or won't they?) the script really just kind of petered out at the end, like they just wanted to wrap it up and call it a day.

I was really hoping to be moved by "The Lake House," at least as a straight romance and I gave it every opportunity I could. Ultimately, however, it came up just a little short in scriptwriting, plausibility, and chemistry. I would recommend "The Lake House" for slow video nights, romance fans, or fans of the two lead actors, but not much else.

Rating: 4/10 -The Biggest Critic

The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005)

Hit and Miss movie, ignore the hype

[4/10 · 17 December 2005]

I kept hearing the hype about this movie and decided to finally rent it on DVD to find out if it was really that funny. It's mostly not that great, at least for me. There were a few complaints along the way, as well as some good things:

1. Why did I know, before I even saw the first frame of this movie, that the "40 year old virgin" was going to be a dork/nerd/geek/weirdo? Oh my god, people, do you absolutely HAVE to be so predictable? Isn't it POSSIBLE for a virgin to be a normal, functioning member of society? Instead, this guy is a typical dork, a loner stuck in a 1977 time warp where he still collects toys and paints toy figurines. He has no friends, dresses badly, and doesn't have social skills. Let's not forget that he also still rides a bicycle and never learned to drive a car. Hmm, any other stereotypical stupidity we could trot out, while we're at it? Oh yeah...

2. Don't forget, a 40 year old virgin man would also know NOTHING about sex, right? After all, he's a virgin. WRONG. This guy would be the MASTER (pun intended) of porn. He would have the world's largest collection of porn videos and would know all about how to "pleasure one's self". Yet, this movie assumes that he knows so little about the female anatomy that he thinks a woman's breasts feel like...sandbags?? Puhleeze. And the way his friends find out that he's a virgin in this movie is so forced that they would have been better off if they had just paused the movie and had the director do a voice over that says "...and here's where Andy's friends find out he's a virgin. And now, we'll go to our next scene."

3. The movie makers would probably tell you that the message this movie sends is that it's "okay" to be a virgin. But the message they actually send in this movie is that it's not okay, because you'll end up as a unhappy, maladjusted, single dork who collects toys.

4. Jane Lynch does a great, understated job of portraying Paula, Andy's boss. No over-the-top performance here, but seething with sexual frustration...nicely done. I would like to point out, however, that what her character does in this movie would be considered sexual harassment of the absolute highest order. If it were a male doing it to a female, N.O.W. would have their panties all in a knot.

5. Kudos also to Gerry Bednob, who plays Mooj, a character that they could have made an entire movie around...LOL! Although the "cursing Indian guy" has been done to death and is kind of a trite character, he was very well done here and hilarious in every scene he was in. I want more of Mooj!

6. Steve Carell was endearing as the lead character, and Catherine Keener was serviceable as his love interest.

7. SPOILER- Trish comes over to Andy's house to tell him it's okay with her that he's a virgin, only to find that he has a porn video collection (previously forced on him by one of his co-worker buddies). Could someone please explain to me how she suddenly comes to the conclusion that he must be some kind of serial sex killer because he has porn videos? That particular plot point was so WEAK that the writer/director should be embarrassed that it was left in the film. I would be more worried about a 40 year old man that DOESN'T have a porn video collection of some kind. Yet, this is supposed to be the event that causes the big conflict in the movie...LAME. END SPOILER.

Overall, it was an okay movie, but only as a rental on a slow night. The humor was mostly low-brow, an obvious effort to be "Something about Mary"-ish, and some of the characters were forgettable. There was potential here as far as the concept goes, but the "40 year old virgin" ultimately didn't satisfy me.

Planet of the Apes (2001)

bleh, not even worth renting the DVD

[2/10 · 6 September 2005]

I was initially quite interested in hearing there was a remake of this venerable classic movie. I wasn't really very happy to find out Mark Wahlberg was starring in it, but I've been wrong before about how someone can hold up a role so I decided to give it a go.

As others have said, Tim Roth does a good job, Helena Bonham Carter is pretty decent, and most of the others are basically blase. Marky Mark, however, was a disaster. He has absolutely ZERO on-screen presence, he can't act well enough to even convince me that he is a human being, much less a astronaut, and the movie suffered badly because of this. I didn't care about his lead character, I had no idea what was going on in his head at any time, he never showed fear, anger, happiness, or any of the myriad emotions that most real people have. It was truly awful. Charleton Heston may have overacted in the 1968 version of this movie, but at least you could associate the word "act" with his performance. And Charleton had the on-screen presence that was so lacking in this version.

Others have mentioned some of the various plot problems, including the ending, so I won't go into them except to say they are there and they make a number of plot events implausible. I would also like to point out that, once again (just as in the original POTA), the presence of horses on this "planet" is yet another obvious plot problem.

As a straightforward action film the movie is pretty decent. The ape makeup and the ape movement is pretty damn good.

Overall, I was considerably disappointed in this version of "Planet of the Apes" It had no originality, they chose the wrong leading actor, and the plot had huge holes. If you want to experience "Planet of the Apes" rent the original...it's so much better that there isn't really any comparison (except for the title). That's too bad, too, because this movie needed to be technologically updated.

Hero (2002)

Absolutely Gorgeous, MUST SEE movie, a true work of video art

[10/10 · 6 September 2005]

I'm not going to mince words here. "Hero" is a great movie. It is a beautifully rendered, artfully constructed, and wonderfully choreographed masterpiece that must be seen by all movie watchers. THIS is what I would refer to as "Art on film". Martial arts fans will be happy, sword fight fans will be happy, and it's even a good date movie.

I know almost nothing about Chinese history, so I can't speak to the political angle that this story takes, or to the accuracy of the story itself. Some have suggested that the plot does not reflect what the Chinese people really felt about the Emperor, nor did it accurately reflect the crimes or atrocities committed at the time. I cannot address those issues. I can only view this movie as a "legend"-type movie and, as such, it's plausible enough and great fun to watch.

I highly recommend that you watch "Hero" in DVD on as big a screen as you can. After seeing how beautiful it is, I regret that I didn't get to see it at the theater.

I happily give "Hero" a 10 out of 10

After the Sunset (2004)

Not bad as jewel heist capers go, but...

[5/10 · 30 April 2005]

*SPOILERS* I'd have to say that this movie is pretty average. There are numerous things about it that I like, but some glaring holes make it really hard to swallow and take it down a few notches for me. Here are a few examples of what bothers me about caper movies like this. (Bear in mind that these are all issues that could have been dealt with if the scriptwriter spent a little more time thinking about plausibility.)

For example: 1) During the basketball scene, how did Max know that there was going to be a rowdy fan in the crowd (we were never told that the "fan" was really one of Max's cohorts), how did he know that fan would cause both of these FBI agents who were watching him to just happen to look away from him long enough for him to disappear, and how did he know these same agents would just happen to look up at the jumbotron screen to see his pre-recorded image (and therefore assume he was still sitting somewhere in the crowd and not on his way to steal the diamond)?

2) Does anyone here have any idea what it takes to take remote control of a real car? First, the car has to be HEAVILY modified with numerous mechanical devices and radios (something that I'm guessing would be hard for even the FBI to do to their own car, yet this jewel thief somehow did it to this particular FBI car). Furthermore, why would Max need the VIN number of the car to take control of it? He didn't already know which car the FBI was going to haul the diamond in? And if he didn't know which car then how could he have modified it as I just mentioned? This "master" jewel thief's plan also depended on all of Stan's FBI buddies getting out of the car before Stan did so Max could lock the doors on the car and take remote control of it. What if Stan got out at the same time as his protectors? Or before? Then our jewel thief's plan would have been hosed.

3) Why would you need a Kenworth truck to push this FBI car sideways into your garage? You have remote control of the car...you can't just drive it in normally? Doesn't this seem like an awful lot of overkill for a jewel thief?

These are just a few examples from the very beginning of the movie. There are numerous others (scuba diving in the middle of the night? What if the other people he was with didn't agree to go scuba diving with him? Then his plan is, once again, hosed. Also, we're supposed to believe that he was able to use a personal propelling device to zoom his way halfway around the island, underwater, in the pitch black, to get to the ship and do the heist. Also, how did he know exactly when to do the heist? Henri Moore didn't tell him exactly when he'd be doing it...only that it would be "after 10pm").Sheesh. *END SPOILERS*

I guess I have too much common sense to watch some of these films. Seriously, how can people believe this kind of stuff?

The movie also was very slow developing at times. They needed to delete some unnecessary scenes.

Other than those numerous (and debilitating) flaws, there was a lot that I did like about the movie.

1) Salma Hayek....grr, baby! 2) Woody Harrelson was pretty amusing in this role. While he was completely not-credible as an FBI agent (he should have been a competing jewel thief...that would have been more believable), I thought it was fun to see the situations they put him (and Pierce) in...good stuff. 3) The cinematography was very nicely done, and didn't call attention to itself. 4) Pierce Brosnan was serviceable in this role, but you probably could have had a number of people in his place (Harrison Ford and George Clooney come to mind). 5) Did I forget to mention Salma Hayek?

Overall, I would have to give this movie a 5 out of 10. I would recommend this for caper fans and Salma/Woody/Pierce fans, but you'll have to kind of check your brain at the door before watching.

Almost Famous (2000)

yaaaawwwwwnnn

[3/10 · 23 May 2002]

You people MUST be kidding.

This movie was a snore-a-thon! I heard so much about it so I decided to rent it on DVD.

Patrick Fugit was a good lead for this movie, but he spent most of his time just looking at everything with the same look of "wonder", whether it be a pretty girl or a plate of food...not the greatest acting.

Kate Hudson was serviceable, but the director spent an AWFUL lot of time in the first half of the movie doing close-up face shots of Patrick and Kate instead of advancing the story...I guess he was fascinated by these two actors.

The atmosphere of the movie was great. Having lived in a rock-and-roll environment in the early 70's it was kinda fun to be taken back to that era.

However, in the end, that's not enough reason to give the film such high marks as it's gotten. It was very slow to develop, too much time was spent on atmosphere and not enough on story. The movie was only watchable from the "airplane incident" on.

Sheesh, people sure are quick to jump on a bandwagon and give a very mediocre film undeserved credit.

I'd give this one a pass.

James

Dr. T & the Women (2000)

Reasonably Good Cast, awful, AWFUL Movie

[1/10 · 7 April 2002]

I remember when this movie hit the theatres "hmm, looks like a fairly decent date movie/romantic comedy"...but something I'd most likely wait to rent on DVD.

I'm here to tell you that it wasn't even NEARLY worth the wait. The story is convoluted, slow paced, makes no sense, unbelievable events happen, it begins to touch on character development but then just...stops.

"Dr. T" stars Richard Gere (who I liked most in "An Officer and A Gentleman") and a well known supporting cast (Helen Hunt, Shelley Long, Janine Turner, Farrah Fawcett, Robert Hays, Andy Richter, Laura Dern, Kate Hudson, and Liv Tyler). It was directed by Robert Altman. I didn't even bother reading credits after it was over but, judging from the situations and dialog, I'd guess this was supposed to be an adaptation of somebody's novel. I think it's supposed to be a satire about Dallas' "nouveau riche", and how one Gynecologist must deal with all these various women (patients, co-workers, and family) in Texas high society.

(Spoilers Below) The first 3/4 of the movie were barely tolerable. Characters are introduced in the first 15 minutes, and we quickly learn to care less about anything that happens to these people for the rest of the movie. They aren't interesting, they aren't developed well, and I could hardly figure out anyone's motivations. For example: Peggy (Laura Dern) apparently has a drinking problem. She's seen drinking wine and champagne throughout the movie, occasionally slurs, and even has one scene where she stumbles and falls in the good Doctor's office...and then that's it. We don't learn anymore about her or her drinking problem than that. Another example: Connie (Tara Reid) keeps telling her dad (Richard Gere) that "everything's okay with me...really, it is." at various times in the movie. For no reason at all. We have no knowledge of why she's saying that or any evidence that there's something else going on and she's really not okay and she's actually about to kill herself or something. There are many other instances such as these in the movie and it makes you say "huh?" more than a few times.

In almost every scene involving 3 or more women throughout the entire movie, Robert Altman used some trick where he'd have all of the women talking at the same time, and would choreograph the scene so that you could still (more or less) follow the storyline. At first, it was mildly amusing to see all these women talking at once in the Doctor's office. After about the tenth time seeing women clucking infernally like hens in the Mall, the Dress store, Tiffany's, a bridal shower, etc, it became a teeth-clenching chore to watch and made me want to rip out somebody's larnyx just so they'd shutup. Hey, Altman, ever heard of "enough is enough"?

Farrah Fawcett plays Dr. T's wife Kate, who goes crazy and strips naked in the mall, dancing around in the fountain at the beginning of the movie. She's eventually put into a mental hospital, where she stays throughout the rest of the movie. Nothing really happens with her and Dr. T never really shows much interest in trying to understand what's wrong with his wife or help her in any way. Instead, he ends up cheating on her with Bree (Helen Hunt), a golf instructor new to the town.

If the first 3/4 of the movie was barely tolerable, the last 1/4 was absolutely, positively ludicrous. Let me tell you what happens, and you tell me if it sounds plausible:

1. At Daughter Dee Dee's (Kate Hudson's) outdoor wedding she suddenly decides, while standing at the altar, that she wants to be with her lesbian lover Marilyn (Liv Tyler) instead of marry her boyfriend.

2. Meanwhile, it just started to rain on the wedding party. And not just any rain...a huge, stormy, thundering downpour. (seems to me that somebody having a outdoor wedding would have paid at least mild attention to the weather reports for their wedding day)

3. While everyone is scrambling for cover from the rain, Carolyn (Shelley Long), Dr. T's long time office manager, runs up to him and says "I've always wanted to be a pastry chef, so I'm quitting my job". Uh, right. This event doesn't seem the least bit preposterously stupid or out of place, does it?

4. Dr. T suddenly decides that he wants to spend the rest of his life with Bree, whom he has known for maybe 2 or 3 romantic evenings. He rushes from the wedding, jumps in his car and drives to her house to tell her the good news. She rebuffs him, however, and he leaves in a huff.

5. He's so upset about this ill turn of events that he drives out into the raging storm, where (inexplicably) there are no other cars on the usually crowded freeways around Dallas.

6. But wait! Now he's suddenly driving toward a...a...TORNADO! Yes, that's right, no tornado watches in Texas, apparently, just a instant tornado. It get's better, though.

7. He and his car get swept up in the tornado, twirled around so many times, then apparently dropped down somewhere in MEXICO! (so this tornado carried him at least 800 miles from Dallas to Mexico? bwahahaha!). Anyway, the storm clears.

8. Some time later, 3 little spanish speaking girls find him laying near his car and they help him get to his feet (YOU MEAN HE'S STILL ALIVE?????????) and take him to their village where, as luck would have it, THE VILLAGERS HAPPEN TO NEED A GYNECOLOGIST JUST THIS VERY MINUTE! One of the local girls is having a baby and, even though none of them speak english (and he doesn't speak spanish) they all just happen to know he's a gynecologist, they let him come into their house, and wait for him to deliver the girl's baby (methinks that maybe they would have already had arrangements in place to have this baby delivered. I mean, they've had 9 months to organize themselves, right? Or maybe they were just expecting a gynecologist to magically fall out of the sky at the right moment).

whew! This was absolutely unbelievable. What am I supposed to think about this movie, especially after the embarrassingly stupid ending?

I thinks it stinks, and I'm going to hold a grudge for a long time about wasting my $4 and 2 hours on this horrible piece of junk movie.

How could people have seriously given this movie a 5 out of 10 rating?? OMG, I feel like I'm doing charity just by giving this stinker a 1 out of 10 rating!

-JamesDee

Keeping the Faith (2000)

Good Solid Date Movie

[7/10 · 13 August 2001]

This was a sweet, funny movie...a good solid date film. But I have a problem with it: I rented the DVD and watched the deleted scenes after watching the movie. While the movie itself was very good, they left out one scene that absolutely BEGGED to be in this movie and would have become a classic scene. It was called "Anna's Pager" and was absolutely HILARIOUS! The director says he left it out because it was too much like something you'd find in "Something about Mary". First, I disagree...it was very funny but not quite as over-the-top as most of what was in "Something about Mary". Secondly, it was edited superbly and just absolutely would have pushed this movie to a higher level. That scene is every bit as funny and memorable as the "I'll have what she's having" scene in "When Harry met Sally"...it's such a shame that they left it out...

Mission to Mars (2000)

Nice special effects, nice music, bad movie

[3/10 · 24 October 2000]

I wasn't sure what to expect when I rented this movie on DVD. The plot sounded interesting...something goes horribly wrong with a manned mission on Mars, and a rescue/recovery mission is sent to investigate. But the resulting movie is almost embarrassing in it's blatant attempt to be "Apollo 13" meets "2001: A Space Odyssey".

The cast is a respectable one, and the actors appear to do what they can to lend some credibility to the movie. But you have to think the heads of NASA are a little ashamed at the ineptitude and lack of discipline that this movie portrays their crews as having only 20 years from now (the film takes place in 2020). According to the movie, married couples are now allowed to go on the same mission to outer space (and, without revealing too much, I can tell you that this movie shows exactly the reason why this ain't a very good idea). Plus, it's amazing that NASA wouldn't have more contingency plans in place than this (SO many things go wrong with the equipment/people/acts-of-God in this film that it's a wonder that the first mission to Mars even made it to the planet in the first place!). Astronauts clearly disobeying orders at every turn, no one seems to be in charge, instead of having a plan and following it, these astronauts are winging it everytime a situation comes up. Good grief. At least "Apollo 13" showed that there was a definite plan, backup plan, and even when that backup plan failed, the astronauts followed orders as precisely as they could from people who were in charge, even given the trying circumstances.

"Mission to Mars" also tries to be philosophical, too, but can't quite pull it off. The "story" told near the end of the movie seems as though it was just a excuse to conveniently wrap up the movie within the allotted time without having to resort to an actual script writing. I think we're supposed to be left wondering just where humankind really comes from. Instead, I was left wondering where I just spent the last 2 hours of my life.

The special effects are generally very good, with a special nod to the appearance of the spacecraft in space and the "planetarium show" near the end of the movie. Ennio Morricone's music is great. I've really come to appreciate his range and imagination over the years (he did the famous theme to "The Good, The Bad, and The ugly" and "The Mission"). The effects of weightlessness in space is a mixed bag. A couple of times it was quite believable but a few times it was obvious that the actors were just hanging around on strings.

Overall, I'd have to give this movie a miss. A great opportunity with a good cast that is marred by the most fundamental problem: The Script.

James

The Spanish Prisoner (1997)

An almost-clever plot with enough holes to qualify as Swiss cheese

[3/10 · 7 December 1998]

I just got done watching The Spanish Prisoner on video and, while there is a lot to like about certain aspects of the film, I found that the plot had just a few too many holes in it and the pacing and direction were uneven.

I enjoyed the performance of Campbell Scott as Joe Ross, the lead character. His character was subdued, but with something of an edge that you couldn't quite put your finger on. I also found that the twists and turns of the various plot devices were somewhat clever, but this was also the movie's Achilles heel. Without giving any plot devices away, there is simply NO WAY that even the most sophisticated organization could run such an elaborate con game. For every step that they would have to manipulate our Hero to, there are many potential problems that would crop up, and there are many contingency plans that would have to be developed. You would have to plan to have all the necessary people and resources available to achieve all your goals at every step of the way. For this plan to work the CIA and FBI combined couldn't have done the job. For the plot to work, you have to believe that Joe Ross would ABSOLUTELY make ONE particular decision at each juncture. If he makes any other decision (for example, he decides to even glance casually at the "Club Membership" agreement instead of just blindly signing it) then the entire plot falls apart.

I'm led to believe, by reading external reviews, that this is supposed to be a well made, film-noir movie and that the characters are meant to talk..in..measured..staccato..deliberate..voices. I found that annoying. That's not how people talk, and it takes my attention away from what they're saying.

The direction was peculiar in a number of instances. For example, some scenes were believable, following from events that came before. Others seemed out of place, as though inserted as an afterthought, the ambiance wholly different from the scenes before or after it.

Hey, I like mystery/thriller/con movies as much as anyone, and I liked this one (a little bit). But creating a successful con game for such a movie is a difficult job, yet it's the most important part of the movie. Mamet didn't quite develop his con game enough so, on a scale of 1-10, I'd give "The Spanish Prisoner" a 3.